Suicide bombing kills at least 15 in Israeli hotel (100+ injured ).

Hey Surfguy
I agree to everything u said ,actully everything but the return of the refugees.
Israle would become the Arabs state rather then the Jews state.
we are willing to compromise (at least I am) about (almost) everything .
I too unsderstand the Arabs pain ,I do know that while everyone is talking about the 300 people killed in terror attacks they all forget about the 1500-2000 palestines that were killes.
but I`m not willing to leave as a minority in my own country.
the UN devided us back in 1948 to 2 countires ,they attacked us first (the Independnce war in 1948) and later we conquered them ,and yes ,in this war (1967) many people had to leave their homes.
but that was a war and we won.
we can talk about everything ,but not about the return of the refugess.
do u honestly believe that of 2 millios palestines would move back in Israel that would bring peace and solve our problems ?

Dan Lederman

 

I'm not sure what the solution is as far as the Palestinian refugees go. I said a fair solution is what is needed. I'm not exactly sure what this will entail. The Arabs require that this issue be dealt with as part of the peace process.

You have a point....war is war. You cannot fight a war which you lose and expect everything to be gravy afterwards.

I don't believe this latest peace initiative is going to work out. It all sounds good but we know better. If Iran and Iraq and Arafat and others want to start a ME war, then they better be prepared to suffer the consequences....even if that means a nuclear response.

Most Arabs scoff that the Holocaust ever happened despite irrefutable evidence. The Israeli people have suffered more than anyone. They are fighting for their land and deserve a secure state. Arabs think Jihad will solve all their problems. They will be in for a rude awakening if Jihad develops into another ME war. They may never get a Palestinian state if that happens.

 

Another lurch towards all out war

By our colleague Richard M. Bennet of AFI Research and RBM Media.

Although Israeli Police and Internal Security authorities were on a heightened state of alert for an expected Islamic terrorist attack during the Passover, the devastating suicide bombing of the Park Hotel in the coastal resort of Netanya in northern Israel as guests gathered for the celebration meal, has come as a mortal shock to the whole country. Despite the increasing ferocity and effectiveness of the Palestinians armed response to the years of political stalemate in the region, the high level of deaths and serious injuries may be the last straw for Sharon and the long-planned military re-occupation of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip has moved a step closer.

While the US envoy General Zinni was visiting the area in mid-March Sharon temporarily scaled down Israel's military activities in the occupied territories, but since then at least 38 Israeli's have been killed and probably 300 injured. These are figures that are unsupportable by Israel's relatively small population and in a macabre form of accountancy the death ratio between Palestinians and Israeli's which had been 25 to 1 in early march, had even before today's tragedy changed to 3 to 1. Unless Washington can quickly turn the economic and military screw on Sharon's Government the chances of a swift and bloody response by Israel's military is very much on the cards.

The Palestinians new allies add fuel to the fire

Although the Arab summit in Beirut is openly in disarray and its main actor Arafat, was not even on stage, he has still managed to steal the limelight with the help of his new Islamic allies. The Al Qa'ida fighters evacuated from Afghanistan before the start of US military action in October last year and safely transited through both Pakistan and Iran to Hezbollah camps in the Lebanon, have now penetrated Israel and the Palestinian territories in considerable numbers. Their military proficiency has played no small part in the rise in Israeli casualties, particularly amongst service personnel. Indeed, a number of heavily armoured Merkava battle tanks have been destroyed or severely damaged in recent weeks by Arab attackers believed to be from Al Qa'ida.

In addition Arafat has accepted considerable help in the form of financial aid, weapons and probably specialist explosives experts and assassins from both Iraq and Iran. It is also believed that unexpected help has appeared in the form of a number Muslim and non-Muslim snipers from both the United States and Europe who have hired out their expert marksmanship to the Palestinians in return for considerable sums of cash from private Saudi supporters.

Arafat appears to feel that his days are numbered and has little alternative to raising the stakes.He may also believe that the Palestinians can win a long-term victory by simply avoiding total defeat and capitulation in the face of overwhelming Israeli military dominance. Arafat is banking on the US agenda needing a quick settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on terms that won't alienate a wider Arab public opinion and a growing European impatience with the lack of progress in peace negotiations, to pressure Israel into offering far more acceptable terms. Despite being the 'old man' of Middle Eastern politics, Arafat may have seriously miscalculated and underestimated the true nature of Israel's fear and anger this time.

http://www.orbat.com/site/americagoestowar.html

Surfguy:

The Saudi "peace proposal" is 100% dead. Even the Arab world doesn't support it (one reason why most Arab leaders didn't bother attending). Besides, when they threw in the "right of return" provision, they knew that they would be killing the proposal themselves. They know that Israel cannot ever, under any circumstances, accept "right of return".

In fact, every time the Arabs and Israelis come close to making a deal, and the Israelis have acceded to all of the Arabs' demands, the Arabs spring the "right of return" issue - knowing full well that it is a dealbreaker. I wonder why they keep doing that?

 

Who initiated the war of 1967 that produced the results the Palestinians are unhappy about??

 

Depends on what you mean by "initiated". The Israelis launched a preemptive strike after we gave them intelligence that the Arabs (mainly the Egyptian army) were massing for another attack.

Had they not launched the preemptive strike, then the Arabs would have attacked them within a month, so it's a bit muddy... Technically, the Israelis "initiated" the war with a preemptive strike, but had they not done so the Arabs would have "initiated" it several weeks later, and the Israelis might have lost - as almost happened in the '73 October War.

Interestingly, during that war Israel actually seized all of the Sinai, but returned it to Egypt when Sadat signed the peace accords with Israel. So there is ample precedent to the notion of giving up land captured in '67 in return for peace. Continuous Arab claims to the contrary are clearly false in light of the Israeli return of the Sinai.

 

The Saudi "peace proposal" is 100% dead. Even the Arab world doesn't support it (one reason why most Arab leaders didn't bother attending).

The Saudi peace proposal, while it has issues in itself, was unanimously approved by all 22-members of the Arab League, regardless of which leaders did not personally attend (some of which apparently may have been due to security issues due to hard-line threats from the Muslim side).

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20020328_883.html

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said the proposal had been unanimously adopted during a closed session, meaning hard-liners like Syria and Iraq signed on along with moderates like Egypt and Jordan.

It also has the support of the US, at least in principle. While it may or may not be a good or workable plan, it is certainly not dead at this point.

 

Major:

The Saudi proposal is most certainly 100% dead at this point. How many Arab leaders are still at the summit out of 22 who were supposed to attend? Six. And the ABC report is inaccurate - it was not unanimously endorsed - that's just flat false.

It is irrelevant anyway. When they threw in "right of return", they killed any chance of it being a workable plan. Even if everyone - including us - endorses it, it will just be for show, as anyone with half a brain knows that the Israelis could never accept it. This is just a way for everyone (including us) to appear to make an attempt at peace, but every one of the actors involved knows that it's just for show.

Are you still clinging to hopes that this proposal will be acted upon? You're in for a big disappointment.

 

And the ABC report is inaccurate - it was not unanimously endorsed - that's just flat false.

Well, until you provide me some proof, I will choose to believe CNN, ABCNews, the BBC, the White House, and the Secretary-General of the Arab-League over treeman. No offense.

Are you still clinging to hopes that this proposal will be acted upon?

I don't know enough details on the plan to say whether I'd support it or not, personally. However, one major obstacle in the past has been that all proposed plans have basically been US-based, which automatically creates distrust from the Arab side. Having a plan -- any plan -- originate from within the Middle East is a step forward, even if it ultimately is rejected.

 

Militant Palestinian group rejects Arab peace overture to Israel, vows to continue attacks
Thu Mar 28, 1:20 PM ET
By HUSSEIN DAKROUB, Associated Press Writer

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hamas, one of the militant groups at the vanguard of the Palestinian uprising, on Thursday rejected the Arab peace initiative to Israel and vowed to continue "all kinds of resistance."


"The summit resolutions are below the aspirations and the sacrifices of the Palestinian people. The resolutions ignored a lot of the Palestinian people's demands," Osama Hamdan, Hamas' representative in Lebanon, told The Associated Press.

The Arab League's overture, made at the end of a two-day summit in Beirut, offered Israel peace, recognition and "normal relations" in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from war-conquered Arab lands, creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees."

The envisioned refugee "solution" is based on a 1948 U.N. resolution that says Palestinians should be allowed to return to their homes or compensated for their losses.

In Gaza City, Hamas spokesman Abdel Aziz Rantisi said the Arab League summit did not change anything for his group, which is dedicated to Israel's destruction.

"As long as there is occupation, there will be a resistance. So we say it clearly: Occupation should be stopped and then there will be something else," Rantisi said.

The suicide bomber who killed 20 people and wounded more than 130 others at a Passover dinner in the Israeli resort town of Netanya on Wednesday was a Hamas member.

But Rantisi denied the bombing was timed to coincide with the Arab summit, which convened about seven hours before the bombing.

There was "no relation at all between that operation and the summit," Rantisi said. "The relation is directly with the occupation."

The Palestinian Authority (news - web sites) said it "strongly condemned" the Netanya attack. Arafat ordered the arrests of key members of Hamas and two other militant groups, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, a militia linked to Arafat's own Fatah (news - web sites) movement.

In Beirut, Hamdan said that, instead of offering Israel peace, the Arab summit "should have cut all kinds of relations and contacts with the Zionist entity."

"We want a clear commitment to the right of return to the Palestinian refugees," Hamdan said. "The Palestinians want clear resolutions in support of the resistance and the intefadeh (uprising). The Palestinian people want an Arab boycott in the face of Israeli aggression and terrorism against them."

Three of the Arab League's 22 members — Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania — already have full diplomatic relations with Israel. Three others — Arafat's Palestinian Authority, Qatar and Oman — have formal ties at lower levels.

"I believe that the resistance and the intefadeh will continue in all forms," Hamdan said. Asked if "all forms" includes suicide bombings, he replied: "The type of operation is left for Hamas' military wing to decide."

However, despite the hard-line stance on peace with Israel, a Hamas statement released in Beirut Thursday night noted what it called "positive elements" in the summit's final communique. It pointed to the praise and support of the Palestinian uprising, the distinction it made between terrorism and resistance and a "breakthrough" in relations between Iraq and Kuwait.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...28/ap_wo_en_ge/arabs_summit_hamas_6&printer=1

 

Major:

Well, I checked some other sources and apparently the Arabs have actually endorsed it - I was going upon other reports (admittedly a day old) that said that it was not unanimously endorsed. Still irrelevant, though - it's just for show, and so that everyone can claim that they want peace (while preparing for war). But I guess several leaders changed their minds overnight...

Actually, there is no "plan" yet, there are only three broad principles put forth - Israeli withdrawal, a Palestinian state, and "right of return". There's no actual "plan" to discuss.

And the idea that "any plan that originates in the ME, no matter how stupid and unworkable, is better than any plan that originates from the US, no matter how sensible and workable" is just flat ridiculous. The only plan that matter is the one that works, period.

That plan doesn't exist.

Some excerpts from a NYT article:

Those demands, spelled out by the prince at a summit meeting here of Arab states, were Israel's withdrawal from all occupied territories; creation of a Palestinian state, with its capital in Jerusalem; and the return of Palestinian refugees.

In adopting the plan today, the delegates added one point to the peace initiative: they rejected the idea that Palestinians would be nationalized in the countries in which they are now living.

Another declaration (not unanimously endorsed)… The initiative demanded the lifting of United Nations sanctions on Iraq imposed for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and rejected any attack on Iraq.

A Palestinian delegate, regarding likely Israeli military action in response to yesterday’s Netanya bombing – "Israel is preparing for a massive assault, Mr. Shaath told reporters. "We call on our Arab brothers to help pre-empt an Israeli offensive."

In the confusion here, Syria hailed the proposal on Wednesday, but demanded that Arab states sever any current ties with Israel, and Lebanon tried to prevent Mr. Arafat from delivering a speech via satellite.

Aides to Mr. Sharon said the term "normal relations" was too vague. He has also rejected any right of return for refugees and a full withdrawal from occupied territories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/international/28CND-ARAB.html

Funny, the Arabs call for the Israelis to allow "right of return" and presumably nationalize millions of Palestinians (and basically erase the state of Israel), but they won't nationalize their own Palestinian populations? Gee, I thought they cared about the Palestinians?

Those who stayed away from the meeting (with the exception of Qadafi and the Iraqi delegation, of course) refrained from endorsing the Beirut Declaration (regarding Iraq). Funny...

The Palestinian calling on his "Arab brothers" to "pre-empt" Israeli aggression? Sounds like he's asking the Arabs to attack Israel again. Nothing new here...

Syria, who backs the "peace proposal" (and insisted that the Saudis include the "right of return" issue), calls on Arabs to sever ties with Israel? Now, those aren't just a tad bit contradictory positions, are they?

And the last one - the Israelis will never accept it. They cannot accept it - they might as well just put a gun to their heads and pull the trigger.

Major, I think you need to learn about what "right of return" means. It is a 100% dealbreaker, and that is why this proposal is dead in the water.