Bush Endorses Israel's Plan on West Bank
- Thread starter ARogueTrader
- Start date
The point is that you and your kind of people simply envy smart hard working individuals. Your statement as old as humanity itself...
btw, I am not one of them (hard working I mean)...
Save your energy my friend, let them choke from their own hatred...
They are not the first and they are not the last, but they will learn their lesson, that is for sure...
RS, thank you for your kind words.
Honestly, I'm far more comfortable with Israel's situation now than I was 3 years ago. I often suffer from the classic 'Cassandra Complex'. Back in '93, I hated Rabin's foolish surrender policies. I knew that the newly created 'Palestinian police force' would point their weapons right back at Israel within a few years. I knew that freeing thousands of incarcerated terrorists was a major mistake, and I groaned at every mention of a 'peace process' with arch murderer Arafat.
Today, the Israeli public has emerged from their fog (for the most part), and have elected a sensible leader, Ariel Sharon. Sharon is doing exactly what I've been saying for over a decade needed to be done, which is build a barrier to quarantine these self-exploding savages off from the civilized world. Even the U.S. president backs him now. Arafat is now under house arrest, instead of parading around the White House spewing his lies. Things are looking up, as far as Israel goes...and while your blood still boils, I think the situation is quite rosy compared to just a few years ago. No more fog. No more delusions of 'peace treaties' with bloodthirsty snakes- just practical containment of the problem.
My words may sound a bit cold hearted to some...but observe the blood soaked results of the Peace process/Co-existence/New Middle East of 1993-2000.
Honestly, I'm far more comfortable with Israel's situation now than I was 3 years ago. I often suffer from the classic 'Cassandra Complex'. Back in '93, I hated Rabin's foolish surrender policies. I knew that the newly created 'Palestinian police force' would point their weapons right back at Israel within a few years. I knew that freeing thousands of incarcerated terrorists was a major mistake, and I groaned at every mention of a 'peace process' with arch murderer Arafat.
Today, the Israeli public has emerged from their fog (for the most part), and have elected a sensible leader, Ariel Sharon. Sharon is doing exactly what I've been saying for over a decade needed to be done, which is build a barrier to quarantine these self-exploding savages off from the civilized world. Even the U.S. president backs him now. Arafat is now under house arrest, instead of parading around the White House spewing his lies. Things are looking up, as far as Israel goes...and while your blood still boils, I think the situation is quite rosy compared to just a few years ago. No more fog. No more delusions of 'peace treaties' with bloodthirsty snakes- just practical containment of the problem.
My words may sound a bit cold hearted to some...but observe the blood soaked results of the Peace process/Co-existence/New Middle East of 1993-2000.
The issue is Sharon's map effectively makes statehood impossible.
He wants to keep those several settlements. Then Israel would have to defend them.
But then the fighting will continue.
Or, the withdrawal from those settlements is an eventual bargaining chip, but for what? What concrete gain can the Israelis get in return from acceding to the demands of the Palestinians and Arabs? The Arabs say a promise not to lob missiles over the border and to normalize relations. But what does that mean? It's a promise to behave differently, and one that can be reneged on in an instant.
Giving up land (despite the source of the land) is a concrete measure and difficult and impossible almost to renege on. It would be a step taken on hope.
My guess is the settlements go, or metamorphosize - if ever - once its residents can walk out without getting picked off by a sniper's bullet.
Getting into the age old argument of whose land it is/was is irrelevant, the reality of today has to be considered.
He wants to keep those several settlements. Then Israel would have to defend them.
But then the fighting will continue.
Or, the withdrawal from those settlements is an eventual bargaining chip, but for what? What concrete gain can the Israelis get in return from acceding to the demands of the Palestinians and Arabs? The Arabs say a promise not to lob missiles over the border and to normalize relations. But what does that mean? It's a promise to behave differently, and one that can be reneged on in an instant.
Giving up land (despite the source of the land) is a concrete measure and difficult and impossible almost to renege on. It would be a step taken on hope.
My guess is the settlements go, or metamorphosize - if ever - once its residents can walk out without getting picked off by a sniper's bullet.
Getting into the age old argument of whose land it is/was is irrelevant, the reality of today has to be considered.
the fence is a defensible approach. i have no problem with a fence closely following the green line. the settlements in Gaza have to go, period, if for no other reason than they are indefensible once the fence is up. most of the west bank settlements will probably go, too, but i can see reason why a few important ones close the green line - which is an arbitrary demarcation anyway - could/should remain.
disengagement - assuming sharon is actually serious about it - which we don't know yet - is worth a try because it has worked elsewhere. a very bold step might be to allow international peacekeepers to maintain vital parts of the barrier a al the cyprus model - perhaps keeping Jerusalem itself safe and allowing it to function as the capital of two states - what a historic mission that would be! - but i'm not sure sharon has that much imagination.
disengagement - assuming sharon is actually serious about it - which we don't know yet - is worth a try because it has worked elsewhere. a very bold step might be to allow international peacekeepers to maintain vital parts of the barrier a al the cyprus model - perhaps keeping Jerusalem itself safe and allowing it to function as the capital of two states - what a historic mission that would be! - but i'm not sure sharon has that much imagination.
Great post RS. A couple things I would add:Quote from Error 404:
Perfectly explained. Calling Israel "imperialistic" is a joke.
For those who do not understand how things evolved in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan....for those that think they understand the concept of "right of return". For those who cannot even define what the "Green Line" is (without checking on Google), I suggest a bit of reading.
Or, make it easy on yourselves and listen to ReardonMetal.
For those who can explain just WHAT a "Palestinian" is, again, read up and then come explain who these people are. Where they came from, why they left, where they went, and what awaited them when they got there.
For those who wonder why the "Palestinians" even feel a need to have a "right of return", find out why they they believe they have this right. Better yet, find out (and explain here), WHY they need to "return" to a place they left 56 years ago...and on what basis they left.
For those who wonder why there is no peace, think about who has the most to gain and the most to lose.
Does Israel want land that they conquered? No, they try to give it back. They tried with the Golan. They did return the Sinai Peninsula, they offered virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza.
But the "Palestinians" (whatever that word means) don't want that land. Or peace. They want the developed country of Israel. Why work hard and make something out of nothing when it's so much easier to throw rocks at a people who built a modern and productive and fertile country out of a small strip of desert.
Throw rocks. Suicide bomb. Attack school buses. With the hope of just taking away the fruits of the labors of the Israelis.
Sickening.
Reardon.....make my points for me. You are better at it, and more used to the frustration. My blood still boils.
Speak on my behalf
I will cover your back on the legalization of drugs issue when needed.
Peace,
RS
Why did Arafat outright reject Barak's offer of almost 100% of occupied territories at Camp David (the closest they had come to any negotiated peace settlement), and immediately declare an intifada?
Why did Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate Palestinian who was reluctantly appointed by Arafat and who was actively engaged by the Israelis, eventually resign from his post as Prime Minister?
Why did Arafat only recently (and under immense UN pressure) agree to change the Palestinian constitution, which specifically equates their liberation with the total elimination of Israel?
Do you really think that Israel wants to maintain control over the current occupied territories, which have been nothing but a huge headache since the war? Trust me, they want nothing more than to return control of the territories to the Palestinians, but only if they can be assured that they would be handing control over to a government that isn't hell-bent on the total destruction of Israel.