open-thread-icon.jpg


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. MM,
    Your argument basically ignores the past 6 decades of Israeli-Palestinian/Egyptian/Syrian/Lebanese/Jordanian conflict.

    My response is again,
    Who is standing up for the Egyptian and Syrian Christian communities?
    Surely they have claim to these lands.
    Hell, they were Christian there for about 600 years before the Muslim communities which seek their retreat.
    Add in the Bhuddists, the Hindus and the Jews throughout the region and you get the picture.

    How about striking a bargain with the “Arab Street”,
    the same street which has been all but silent on the issue of radical Islam.
    How about the Palestinians get their land again, the land once given to them at the same time as Israel then lost in wars.
    But, let the occupiers of once Christian, Hindu and Bhuddist lands give up their holdings in South East Asia, Eastern Europe and North Africa?

    That sounds like a grand bargain.

  2. “legion — do you think Israel is more secure in the long run being the minority occupiers of a palestinian majority? Because we are headed further and further down that road.”

    slopefarm,
    Sadly, if we are to learn our lessons from neighboring nations my answer is no.
    My argument forces the acknowledgement that what we are dealing with here is a sustained and calculated effort by Arab/Muslim nations to rid the region entirely of any pluralistic sentiment.
    I will refer again to the Egyptian Coptics, the Syrian Christians, the Iraqi Marsh People, Iraqi Jews, Iranian Zoroastrians, Afghani Bhuddists, Chechen Christians, Kashmiri Hindus, I can go on and on.

    The underlying implication of your argument is that it is a fait accompli as far as Israel is concerned.
    I am not in the habit of believing that one can effectively bargain from a position of weakness.

  3. Legion, take a look at any map of the West Bank that shows the Palestinian controlled land, and the settlements in the same area. It looks like Swiss cheese. There are settlements all across the West Bank, all of which cost Israel money and personnel to police and protect, as each settlement has to have private roads, walls and checkpoints in order to be safe. It’s unsustainable and ridiculous, like building hundreds of upscale gated neighborhoods in an empovershed city. The result is as to be expected, and in this case it’s worse, because both groups hate each other, and both have guns themselves. There can be no peace until these settlements stop, and arrangements can be made to move most of these people out. That’s all there is to it.

  4. legion — do you think Israel is more secure in the long run being the minority occupiers of a palestinian majority? Because we are headed further and further down that road. Santayana might point you to South Africa to see how that turned out. He mioght also point you to Mubarak. I am not equating Israeli govt with Apartheid S.A., but maintaining security under those circumstances will require ever increasing controls of some kind.

    “but isn’t that exactly what was done about 60 years ago?

    I mean the part about giving the Palestinians a chunk of land of their own?”

    Yes, 60 years ago it was done by fiat by the UN. If it can be achieved now with regional buy-in and viable statehood, it would be more secure. If I were Israel, I would be investing capital in West Bank economy, so there are jobs and something to lose by pursuing a destructive path against Israel. Quite a bit of Hamas’s popularity is due to the fact that they are much better at providing amenities and services than Fatah.

  5. Legion- that was not exactly what happened and you need to read up on the actual events both before and immediately following the establishment of the State of Israel. If you understood all the facts and issues in the region, your comment wouldn’t feel so simplistic.

1 4 5 6 7 8 43