XPost: seattle.politics, wash.politics, alt.politics.bush
XPost: az.politics, tx.politics, talk.politics.mideast
XPost: soc.culture.israel
From: no.email@this.time
Michelle Steiner wrote:
>In article ,
> Martin W. Smith wrote:
>
>> The West Bank is *all* the territory of Palestine, including part of
>> Jerusalem, that was considered part of Jordan. It doesn't matter what
>> the new Israeli's thought.
>
>In other words, fuck the Jews; who the fuck gives a goddam what they
>think?
No, Michelle, thatconclusion doesn't follow at all. The West Bank as
defined by the pre-67 line or border or boundary, whatever you want to
call it, was definitely part of Jordan.
>> The new Israeli's seized land in 1948. There was no
>> legal right to do that, but they did it, and it stood.
>
>That is a very revisionist retelling of history.
there was no state of Israel pre 1948. I didn't say there shouldn't be
one. I said there wasn't one. That isn't revisionist AT ALL.
>> Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians either ere forced to leave the
>> new Israel, or they flead in fear.
>
>The "fled" because the propaganda machine of the attacking Arab nations
>told them to do so, in order to hamper movements of Israeli troops and
>material. They were told that the war would be over, with the total
>destruction of Israel, within two weeks--and they could then return home.
But those were lies, weren't they. It doesn't matter HOW they got
screwed. Israel never invited them back. Israel didn't say, We need
you to help build our new nation. No, Israel effectively said We don't
want you.
>When they arrived in Jordan and Egypt, they were herded into "refugee
>camps" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and for the next two
>decades, were never allowed out of those camps to assimilate into those
>nations. Jordan and Egypt maintained that the West Bank and Gaza Strip
>were sovereign to themselves, even after Israel captured those lands in
>the six-day war. When it became obvious, even to them, that they were
>not going to be able to grab the land back, they relinquished their
>claims to it, and acknowledged the "Palestinian state," which they had
>refused to recognize until then.
All true enough. None if justifies Israel's continued refusal to solve
the problem. Israel has all the power. Israel is the only Missle East
power. It falls to Israel to come up with a solution, given the
requirement that whatever solution Israel proposes must be accepted by
the Palestinians, or it won't work. the Palestinians will keep
fighting until they get what THEY think is a fair deal. Israel must
work within that framework. Israel refuses to do so.
>> As I see it, you have two choices - the two-state solution based on
>> the pre-67 war border (or line, whater you want to call it, you know
>> where it is), or the one-state solution, which incorporates all of
>> the West Bank and Gaza into Israel.
>>
>> You decide. Personally, I think the two-state solution won't work. I
>> advocate the one-state solution.
>
>I would advocate that as well, except for the fact that it would never
>lead to peace. But you do not want peace, do you? You want the attacks
>on Israeli women and children to continue forever, don't you?
It would lead to peace. I won't dignify the other questions with
answers.
>As much as I believe that Israel has the legal, moral, and ethical right
>to keep the West Bank and Gaza Strip, I acknowledge the reality that
>unless Israel turns those lands over to the modern-day Palestinians, and
>recognizes that they are a nation, there won't be any peace until one
>side or the other is wiped out.
But that solution will fail. Palestine would fail economically.
>The only part of those lands that should not be turned over is
>Jerusalem; history has shown that under Arab control, Jews are barred
>from that city. Another solution, acceptable to all sides (and it's
>more than just Israel and the Palestinians, or Muslims and Jews), has to
>be found.
Then the one state solution is the only way.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
