Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Israel/Palestine again (Was: skinheads in france??

In-Reply-To: <aa57lt+99ae@...>
clumma wrote:

> Israel is also a State, with borders on a map. It's definitely
> a tricky situation. Is the demand that all jews leave Palestine?
> Is any government explicitly demanding this? How many jews live
> there? More are moving there all the time, no?

Israel is a state recognised by the United Nations, but its borders are in
dispute. What do you mean by Palestine? Any reasonable peace settlement
would recognise Israel in its 1967 borders. The status of settlements is
one thing that prevented a deal being made at the beginning of the current
intifadah. The Palestinian negotiators accepted the borders be moved to
put the majority of the settlements inside Israel, but insisted on
equivalent land from Israel in return. The Israelis only offered a
minority of the occupied territories to Palestine. As the talks broke up,
this was never resolved.

On a Palestinian state being created, it is assumed that Jewish settlers
within its borders would be forced to leave.

The Palestinians are also demanding a right for refugees to return to
their homes in Israel. This needn't be exercised, but is a right the UN
gives them and they won't give up lightly. So far, Israel has refused to
recognise it.

There are disputes over Jerusalem -- both nations want it as their
capital. Good progress was made on resolving this, with each nation
controlling its own holy places. But it went down with the rest of the
deal.

More Israelis are being settled in the occupied territories all the time,
and this has continued through all peace deals and cease fires. That's
why the cease fires have been so fragile. Israel insists on a cessation
of all Palestinian violence, but doesn't offer to halt the settlements in
return. Enough Palestinians see this as an unequal deal to break it.

> >maybe you're referring to the recent (three-week) military
> >operation, which is roughly analogous to the u.s. operation
> >in afghanistan?
>
> Don't really know about it. Last I heard, they had Arafat
> surrounded, and Colin Powell was dispatched. I had great
> hopes that something good would come out of this. I know
> nothing of Powell except that his State Department has been
> against an invasion of Iraq, which I view as a good sign.

It doesn't look like any deals can be made now. The Israelis are
destroying the Palestinian institutions created by Oslo, and will continue
until they've finished the job. The Palestinians continue to oppose the
occupation. When Israel realises they can't defeat Palestine militarily,
despite overwhelming superiority, negotiations will begin again.

> >the aim is "rooting out terrorism" -- in both cases, i feel, with
> >insufficient emphasis on root causes. other isreali actions over
> >the past year seem geared mainly toward intimidation
>
> I was told they have bulldozed Palestinian settlements, paved
> over them, and put in Jewish settlements.

Palestinians aren't settlers, they're the indigenous people. Israel did
bulldoze houses in that refugee camp, but not in the interests of
settlement. There's no real connection between the settlement policy and
"rooting out terrorism".

> >>What is it P. wants that Israel cannot agree to?
> >
> >the expulsion of the jews from the "holy land" (unless you only
> >pay attention to their english-language statements).
>
> This includes only the Gaza strip?

I don't think Gaza's much of a problem. The West Bank and particularly
Jerusalem are. See above for the state of the official negotiations. It
looks like nothing is too great a problem to prevent a deal if both sides
really want it. Israel has been negotiating from a position of strength
because they defeated the various Arab armies in 1967 and are in
occupation of the disputed territories. But the Palestinians will keep on
fighting until they get a deal they believe is fair. Hence the intifadah,
which is horrific for both sides, and may well lead to peace when both
sides fully understand that.

> >meanwhile, innocent palestinians have had to live in a state of
> >military occupation and blatant human rights abuses. knowing no
> >life other than brutal hardship, it is little wonder that many
> >are ready to jump at causes to die for, in the hope that it might
> >somehow better their people.
>
> This is a great shame. It does paint a very different picture to
> this reader than the motivations of poverty, religious extremism,
> and doctored schoolbooks suggested by your previous messages.

Both are true. The Palestinian economy collapsed when Israel stopped
Palestinians working in Israeli areas. The poverty increases as the war
goes on -- a classic vicious cycle. In isolation, ignorance and extremism
flourish.

> My friend recently undertook a comprehensive research project to
> figure out who was at fault, so he could figure out which group
> he hated more. His search ended without any conclusion.

Quite.

> I don't know why the survival of Israel has anything to do with
> oil. I view our involvement as a necessity based on our large
> jewish constit'cency, and very pro-Israel thus far. That's as it
> should be, I guess.

Oil seems to be an irrelevance. The US supports Israel's existence and
supplies military aid to that effect, which is indeed as it should be.
The US is, however, far from being an uncritical supporter of Israel,
despite the attempts of the delightful Mr Bin Laden to paint it so.

> From what I've heard this war sounds very standard -- two
> different groups fighting for control of land. It seems from
> what I've heard that Israel should either purchase or conquer
> the area, or get out.

No, it's an unusual war in that one side is far stronger than the other,
but the war persists. The best parallel is Vietnam -- remember how it
ended.

Graham

Dear Graham,

Clearly, we all have our sympathies. Mine are surely with the innocents that
have lost their lives on all sides. However, my family is the Jewish family.
If this colors what I write, I am sorry, for it is nothing that I can
change. I can only hope that what I write is clear as I hope it is when I
write about tuning.

Graham: Israel is a state recognised by the United Nations, but its borders
are in
dispute. What do you mean by Palestine? Any reasonable peace settlement
would recognise Israel in its 1967 borders.

JR: This would leave an 8-mile width that encouraged 3 earlier wars against
Israel.

Graham: The status of settlements is
one thing that prevented a deal being made at the beginning of the current
intifadah. The Palestinian negotiators accepted the borders be moved to
put the majority of the settlements inside Israel, but insisted on
equivalent land from Israel in return. The Israelis only offered a
minority of the occupied territories to Palestine. As the talks broke up,
this was never resolved.

JR: It was announced internationally as 97-percent of the West Bank was to
be under Palestinian control. And negotiations were to continue, supposedly
to improve trust.

Graham: On a Palestinian state being created, it is assumed that Jewish
settlers
within its borders would be forced to leave.

JR: Would the Israeli Arabs (at 1/5th the Israeli population) be "forced to
leave?" No, they probably will not.

Graham: The Palestinians are also demanding a right for refugees to return
to
their homes in Israel. This needn't be exercised, but is a right the UN
gives them and they won't give up lightly. So far, Israel has refused to
recognise it.

JR: Is there discussion of the Jews from Arabic lands being allowed to
return? The numbers are about the same. Most all Arabic nations expelled
their Jews and turned them into refugees this century. Of course, so did
much of Europe. Regardless, however inured to terrorism one's people becomes
to terrorism, it is still insufferable to have murderers of children in your
midst. Perhaps from an Israeli view, the poor, innocent Palestinians that
are getting killed in the crossfire are a short term loss for which they are
changing the rules. Unfortunately, they play a rotten media war. And they
should pay to rebuild the Palestinians, much as they did post-Oslo. Most all
the arms and buildings that have been destroyed in the Palestinian were built
with Israeli money and acquiessence.

Graham: When Israel realises they can't defeat Palestine militarily,
despite overwhelming superiority, negotiations will begin again.

JR: This is too early to tell. I recall with Afghanistan, few on the list
had predicted how things would turn out…and they are not over yet!
Ø >the aim is "rooting out terrorism" -- in both cases, i feel, with
> >insufficient emphasis on root causes. other isreali actions over
> >the past year seem geared mainly toward intimidation
>
> I was told they have bulldozed Palestinian settlements, paved
> over them, and put in Jewish settlements.
Ø
Graham: Palestinians aren't settlers, they're the indigenous people.

JR: Both sides were once settlers, back in time. Even Qureish (now called
Mecca) was a heavily Jewish city.

Graham: Israel did bulldoze houses in that refugee camp, but not in the
interests of
settlement. There's no real connection between the settlement policy and
"rooting out terrorism".

JR: I guess you didn't hear the explanations of the firefight that required
a bull dozer to end it. This has been collaborated by Hamas, of all things.
The connection between the settlement policy and "rooting out terrorism" is
that the settlements have a ring of Israeli army protecting them AND as eyes
in the region in case of regional war.

carl > From what I've heard this war sounds very standard -- two
> different groups fighting for control of land. It seems from
> what I've heard that Israel should either purchase or conquer
> the area, or get out.

Graham: No, it's an unusual war in that one side is far stronger than the
other,
but the war persists. The best parallel is Vietnam -- remember how it
ended.

JR: I'm sorry that I have been in disagreement on this but I think it fair to
represent all sides on this and I do believe I have given honest answers in
response to perceived differences. This is not like anything else,
especially Vietnam. Maybe it is more like the Falklands War? Nah

Israel is far stronger because Europe has been trying to destroy them in the
form of Jews for centuries. They are in the same struggle. The U.S. does
not have this history and is thus more supportive of Israel. The Germans
could not jump into Bosnia defense, nor could the Japanese jump into Korean
defense, both because of historical sensitivities. They are stronger because
they had nearly been decimated world wide (if things had worked out a bit
differently). A non-violent people for centuries has pooled its world
refugees to build a modern state that withstand hatred from the outside world
in its ancestral land. And this was accomplished through the Balfour
Declaration made by former occupier Britain.

For the Palestinians I feel horrible. I think they have had horrible
leadership and that Israel would turn to Sharon only because the whole left
wing has been forced to fear terrorism. Most Jews world wide were surprised
as Sharon is a well known figure internationally. I guess Isrealis think
Peres would not be able to defend the nation in a war, while Sharon has
proved he can. Netanyahu wants to build a wall around Israel, like an old
European "Alt-stadt" or Great Wall of China.

Let's watch carefully and see if the mood has shifted any so that diplomacy
can take every advantage.

Thank you for listening, Johnny Reinhard

Israel/Palestine again (Was: skinheads in france??

🔗graham@...

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>