A Palestinian State? No, Thanks!

Warning, warning, biased source.
Beep beep beep beep ....

Once upon a time, the UN Partition Plan of 1947 offered the Palestinians 47 percent of their country. They
didn't like it. The Israelis, who were arriving from all over Europe, didn't like it either. Then came the Oslo
Agreement. It offered them 22 percent of the original land. They were tired of almost 50 years of Diaspora
and brutal Israeli occupation and said yes. So did the Israelis.

Later on, the Israelis reconsidered. Barak's generous offer at Camp David offered them 80 percent of the 22
percent of the 100 percent that was originally theirs. They didn't like it, neither did the Israelis. Sharon came
along with another offer in 2000: 42 percent of the 80 percent of the 22 percent of the original 100 percent,
but with conditions. Among other things, he insists on the right to share control over Palestinian land, sea
and airspace, and to "invade" anywhere, anytime he wishes.

---

With their towns and leadership under siege, and with the Israeli army waging an elaborate war on civilians,
I wonder what kind of state is left for the Palestinians to defend or to negotiate about. I would advise the
Palestinian Authority to just pick up what is left of their dignity and leave, pronounce all peace agreements
(or what is left of them) null and void, and start anew their fight for freedom. This way, Israel will be
responsible, as an occupying force, for the welfare and security of the occupied. Sharon will not find a
punching bag in the authority and someone to blame for every suicide attack. Instead, Israel, as an
occupier, will be solely responsible for providing security to both Israelis and Palestinians.

I say: Quit a bad deal that keeps getting shoddier, and rekindle your struggle for full freedom. Whatever you
get will certainly be better than this made-for-suckers scheme.


ArabNews

No more biased then JP or any other Israeli source...

I just thought the argument made was interesting.
Can't say it is new though, seen it before.

:thumbsup:

still think they actually have a choice in this matter, but we are long since past that point.

Get to the table, or be overrun...that's it.

The Pals are the ones who'd better wise up.

don't cooperate. That is real sensible. I thought suicide bombings were immoral?

Oh yeah they better wise up or else Sharon will do what he always wanted to do, drive them all out into Jordan and other places. Ethnically pure land..

Yeah, since the advent of the nuclear bomb, lots of nations get "overrun."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am actually kind of passive. I haven't had a fight in a couple decades. I very rarely even raise my voice.

Israel would love to negotiate with a Palestinian representative that offers peace. When one does, let me know because it's never happened. None of them are willing to take down the terror network because they think it works in their benefit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

then somebody reminds them that nuking the neighbors might not give Sharon as big of a popularity surge on the Israeli street, it is apparently forbidden to suggest that there might be any actual less positive consequences to his corpulent self at the hands of Israeli parents who had not envisioned their kids breathing fallout before their bat/bar mitzvahs, but you get the idea.

despite it's posession of a really excellent nuclear arsenal,
and a formidable military. Such nations are not taken from without,
they collapse from within. Of course I realize that that sort of
thing is completely impossible in the case of Israel, especially
when it is being so well managed by its current government.

And that's what will have to happen to Israel. If the neighbors think they can do that, it will land heavily on their heads.

The Soviets didn't have the US taxpayers writing them checks....

You are correct that we are propping them up at this point,
economically and militarily - although their native capabilities
are not to be sneezed at - but it is not correct to assume that
that is a situation that must continue in perpetuity. It appears
to me that we are fairly close to a situation, a year or two perhaps,
where something will have to give. It depends somewhat on how the
rest of the World reacts. If there arises an unwillingness to
loan further money, it won't take long at all.

One of the reasons that Sharon and his minions are thrashing around
so loudly now is that the current situation loses for them in the
end, so they have to try to change it.

per http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004075

What I don't grok is why a Marxist who hates eating out would hoard a half billion dollars, but then again Bill Gates never called it a day. Like the Windows intifada, semi-permeable walls don't do a great job of stopping osmosis.

But I defy you to find a candidate that can push for a "more balanced" mid-east policy.

Dean tried it and look where it got him...

Things ain't never as simple as they seem. ;)

The forum format in some ways exposes truth and in other ways obscures it.

A fellow who is elected with a large majority in the
popular vote and the electoral vote can do what he likes,
few will dump him for his Middle East policy if things are
going well otherwise. (Mr. Bush on the other hand needs
every vote and needs to steal a few to boot.)

In that situation all one needs is some ideas and the will to
carry them out. One might have to browbeat congress a bit too.

Mr. Dean strikes he as an honest (for a politician) and a
pragmatic man, that is about the best you can hope for.