I agree and disagree. The Palestinians certainly need to want a state for themselves more than they wish to destroy Israel. At the same time, what this demands of them is to also want a state for themselves upon a much smaller piece of land than what is 'historic Palestine,' which they believe is there's to begin with. So the demand is twofold and I do not fault them that the decision is very hard to make and very painful. Yet, the reasonable people out there are quite certain that the Palestinians have only one real choice that is both in their favor, albiet given the circumstances, and also life-affirming and that is to accept the state of Israel once and for all and to work on making a state in West Bank and Gaza. What terrorism shows, despite what the madman Fanon supposed in his book, which is essentially anarchistic, that the Palestinians, some perhaps more than others, are more willing to wreck war with Israel than they care about their lives, the lives of their families, and the prospects of their being a home for them. The only thing that would or should stop Israeli constructions of settlements is not rockets or terror but simply the acceptance of the state of Israel; once they do that, Israelis have no choice, but to evacuate from all the territories. If they continue to reject Israel, Israel will contine to reject Palestine and build settlements. This is the rule of the game; a stalemate that will not wither away, I am afraid, unless one really corageous Palestinian should stand up, with a really thick bullet proof vest and a million bodygaurds and declare to his people, "enough is enough."
In my opinion the answer is no. But peace is also not certain. It all depends upon whether or not the Palestinians want a state more than they want to destroy the Jewish state. President Obama has put the USA government squarely behind the idea of two states for two peoples. Historically, the problem has been that though the Jewish people wanted a state and built one, the question of statehood for the Arab Palestinian people has been a miner secondary concern. If now the Palestinians see statehood as their primary goal, then there is a possibility for peace. If not, then the conflict will continue.
Is peace possible? No, not in our lifetime. Will the Palestinians stop terrorism? Well, no. Will Israel give up? No. It is a fight to the end. So there you have it.
Your pessimism puts you in a good position to be right.
Unless complete utopia comes to the region you can claim your clairvoyant vision.
I on the other hand believe that this complex issue is constantly changing and even though peace may not have been possible in the narrow window of Arafat and Ariel Sharon there are constant new developments and untried approaches to peace.
Is peace possible? No, not in our lifetime. Will the Palestinians stop terrorism? Well, no. Will Israel give up? No. It is a fight to the end. So there you have it.
You actually misquoted me in the first sentence and then chose to answer a question with a question. The mandate divided the land into two regions to be controlled by Arabs and Jews. It did not, in any way, create or design statehood for either side. The Jews, however, created a state and declared as such. The Arab side has not yet, 60+ years later. Furthermore, you keep harping on the idea of Arab displacement as the sole purpose for the creation of a Jewish State. Was some displacement a RESULT of the creation, absolutely. That is why they were given their own piece of the pie, which by the way, they turned down.
Wrong, I answered your question with an answer. Regardingtwo regions, they were both designated to be States as proposed prior to 1947. As for displacementa result of the creation I too agree but go beyond that in saying it was Zionist plans as noted by the scholar Khalidi to expell as many Arabsas possible(the Jewish Agency denying as many Arabs as they could with Israeli citizenship was evident of that)and to eventually expand their existing State antagonsing a cycle of violence, 56% of the mandate wasn't enough for them.
Your response that a critic of a Palestinian state must be a supporter of Zionist Expansion is so far from reality, I don't know how to respond.
The fact that you have attempted to chosen to insult the fact rather to reply to it speaks volumes.
The fact is a critic of a Palestinian State, would rather Palestinians be expelled or put under Israeli citizenship. Both are in reality, serving Zionist purposes who believe Jews have a greater right to the Mandate area than Palestinians thus fulfilling encroachment.
Do you have a shred of evidence that Palestinian State is not? Given the fact
If a critic of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, then why is a critic of a Palestinian state a supporter of Zionist expansion. Does double-standard ring a bell?
Not all, the case for a Palestinian State back in 1947 including Jews and Arabs was greater than a case for a "Jewish" State who's sole purpose was to displace people who weren't Jewish and giving priority to those who were Jewish.
A critic of a Palestinian State is most definitely a supporter of Zionist expansion, no doubt about it. Being a critic of Israel and being an anti-semite are not mutually the same thing.
You actually misquoted me in the first sentence and then chose to answer a question with a question. The mandate divided the land into two regions to be controlled by Arabs and Jews. It did not, in any way, create or design statehood for either side. The Jews, however, created a state and declared as such. The Arab side has not yet, 60+ years later. Furthermore, you keep harping on the idea of Arab displacement as the sole purpose for the creation of a Jewish State. Was some displacement a RESULT of the creation, absolutely. That is why they were given their own piece of the pie, which by the way, they turned down.
Your response that a critic of a Palestinian state must be a supporter of Zionist Expansion is so far from reality, I don't know how to respond.
Do you have a shred of evidence that Palestinian State is not? Given the fact
If a critic of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, then why is a critic of a Palestinian state a supporter of Zionist expansion. Does double-standard ring a bell?
Not all, the case for a Palestinian State back in 1947 including Jews and Arabs was greater than a case for a "Jewish" State who's sole purpose was to displace people who weren't Jewish and giving priority to those who were Jewish.
A critic of a Palestinian State is most definitely a supporter of Zionist expansion, no doubt about it. Being a critic of Israel and being an anti-semite are not mutually the same thing.
A Palestinian State is viable but Israel needs to pull her weight too.
Do you have one shred of evidence that a Palestinian state is viable?
Any critic of a Palestinian State is a support of unnecessary Zionist expansion which makes it perfectly acceptable world wide to systematically uproot a local population establish an encroaching State.
If a critic of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, then why is a critic of a Palestinian state a supporter of Zionist expansion. Does double-standard ring a bell?
A Palestinian State is viable but Israel needs topull her weight too.
Any critic of a Palestinian Stateis a support of unnecessary Zionist expansionwhich makes it perfectly acceptable world wide to systematically uproot a local population establish an encroaching State.
I have some hope that Netanyahu's new program (there's not much new about it....) will improve the situation. Improving the lot of the Palestinian Arabs (economically, services, less Israeli interference in their daily lives) can make adifference.
But it all depends on thier leadership. If they were smart, they would understand that a) Israel is here to stay, b)they are nowhere near ready for statehood. They would build a civil society, civil institutions (welfare, education, health, etc.) and convince Israel that they can realize their national goals and not pose a threat to Israel. But they are doing everything to convince us of the opposite!
I do not think that a Palestinian State is viable - even if Israel did not exist. The area is too small for a Palestinian state, and it would not be able to absorb the "refugees" - and it's likely that if such a state is founded, the Arab countries will force out the "refugees" and flood it with the hope that the situation will explode and Israel will be harmed. If anyone is seriously looking for peace, the "refugees" (who have been cultivated as such for 60 years!) must be permanantly settled in the countries where they live and given citizenship there.
Evacuating hundreds of thousands of residents and destroying the Jewish communities that have grown in Judea and Samaria in the past 30 years is not a viable option. No gov't can make such a high percentage (about 5%) homeless - as was done to the expelees of Gush Katif. Logistically and socially, not to say morally, it's not an option - and Israel has to be clear about this, no matter what pressure the US president exerts. The Palestianian leadership will accept nothing less than 100% fulfillment of their dreams (especially if the US and Europe encourage them) - and that won't happen. So I don't see a resolution of th econflict in the near future.
I am not a big fan of the security fence. Security is created by rooting out dangers, not by building fences. The fence makes the lives of Palestinian Arabs difficult and creates an artificial border. It sould not be a permanent fixture.
Aside from all that - a visit to most places in Israel is quite safe. We go about our daily lives with a sense of security and optomism. It is not so easy to wander into Gaza by mistake! We live in an amazing and beautiful country and welcome visitors.
