Google| Subject | Israel and Palestine; was: Republicanism still an offence in England? |
| From | Raven |
| Date | 2002-04-14 02:46 (2002-04-14 02:46) |
| Message-ID | <Lo4u8.164$JH6.6680@news.get2net.dk> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Russ |
| Followups | Insane Ranter (2h & 28m) Jay Random (4h & 49m) > Raven David Flood (20h & 23m) > Raven |
"Russ" <mcresq@aol.com>skrev i en meddelelse news:20020413175318.04407.00005423@mb-fi.aol.com...
RussWhich is why, if you (as I expect) say that the Israelis have a genuine reason to be able to defend themselves against attacks from their neighbours, I wholeheartedly agree. Here and now, the risk of an attack is small, but the Middle East is volatile even apart from the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Here and now, their Arab neighbours are too divided to unite efficiently, and apart from Saddam they have leaders who don't want to rock the boat. That may swiftly change, for instance if there are revolutions in some of these countries, or the leaders, to prevent civil unrest or revolutions, decide to direct the attention of their peoples elsewhere. Imagine the Hashemites in Jordan being overthrown and Jordan allying itself to Iraq. Imagine a d?tente between Iraq and Syria. Imagine if the Royal House of Saudi Arabia decides that appeasing the USA is become less important than to quell unrest in their own country. Then Israel will have a problem.
You forgot to mention that after refusing they continued attacks against Israel for the next 20 years.
?jevind L?ng
Now they are willing to do that in return for a Palestinian state in those territories, and now Israel refuses.
RussThere is disagreement over what Barak offered. Nearly all of the territories, but not East Jerusalem. Or nearly all of that part of the territories that were up for negotiation, excluding the Jewish settlements. These would have carved the Palestinian statelet into slices, as it was already before the second Intifada. There are many roads which are forbidden to Palestinians. They are for the exclusive use of Israelis.
They haven't refused. Barak offered it two years ago. And Sharon has not rejected the Saudi proposal at all. However, the Palestinians are certainly not going to get when they could have gotten before 1967 (continuing to wage losing war does have its price). They won't get Jerusalem and they won't get a right of return.
I'm neither God nor an expert, but it seems to me that the settlements are the main problem. Let there be a Palestinian state without these. As long as the Israelis feel their existence threatened, and as long as the Palestinians don't have a viable state, the UN, the US, the EU, even God himself booming from above, can tell them all in vain.?jevind L?ng
I think that the UN, led by the US, should tell them all to stop their antics
Israel seems to have three main reasons for building and maintaining these settlements. One is that some Jews and Christians believe, for religious reasons, that the Jewish people has a divine right to the entirety of Palestine, modernly called Eretz Israel. But it is silly international politics to grant special religious privilege at the expense of others. It's like defending the Aztecs waging war for the purpose of capturing prisoners that they could sacrifice. Their religion demanded it. So what? The second is that Israel between the 1967 borders is a small country, and still receiving Jews from all over the world, expecially Russia nowadays. They need more room for that growing population. This argument can safely be dismissed by any who have heard the word "Lebensraum" and detest it. The third reason is military security. This reason is one that cannot be dismissed. If Syria has the Golan heights, they can shell Israel from them. If Jordan or a Palestinian state has the West Bank, an attack from or through there can cut Israel in half that more easily. But imagine if Israel is offered a choice. On one hand they may give up the Gaza strip and the West Bank to a Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as capital though with Israeli sovereignty over the Weeping Wall and the accessroads to it, and the Golan heights to Syria. In return they become members of NATO. Directly allied to the mightiest nation in the world (the USA) and to the mightiest military in the neighbourhood (Turkey, which is already sympathetic enough to Israel to let the Israeli air force train in Turkish airspace). The IDF is an army that knows how to fight, and Israel would be an asset to us as much as a responsibility - once they got rid of this little moral issue here. On the other hand they may retain the territories that they took in 1967, and remain outside NATO. Which would offer them the greatest security? I would hazard a guess that the first option would.
Israel has two security problems. One, as mentioned, is the risk of a military invasion by their neighbouring nation-states. So far they have defeated them every time, but not by crushing them. Their enemies need be victorious only once. The other, which makes life ugly though it does not directly threaten the existence of the state of Israel, is the terrorist attacks by Palestinian gunmen, car bombers and suicide bombers. If the Palestinians got a state of their own, there would be much fewer Palestinians who were motivated to attack Israel in that way. They would also have less opportunity, because a straight and short border is easier guarded than a long and sinuous one as exists between the PA on the West Bank and Israel now. A *viable* Palestinian state would probably reduce the violence drastically. Though I daresay that the violence would not disappear. There would still be Palestinians wanting to destroy Israel, or at least have further revenge upon the Jews. They would be fewer, and less tolerated by Palestinian authorities and a population that now had much to lose. For that matter there would be Jewish extremists, like the Mosque shooter or the young man who murdered Yitzhak Rabin, who would regard such a solution as a betrayal and a giveaway of Our Land (tm). I suppose such a solution could improve the situation to something resembling the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
And the West would be freer to trounce Saddam, at that.
Rob.
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
