Replies

I wont seal my judgement yet, but forgive me if I think you are showing an immoral bias.
I have not 'defended' the Palestinians, nor have I 'defended' the Israelis. My personal feeling is that they are all acting like complete idiots. Regardless of ideaology, I'm for honestly looking at the realities that nobody denies. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only happen in 3 scenarios.
1. There are no more Palestinians
2. There are no more Israelis
3. They figure out how to get along

1 and 2 can be put aside as unworkable.
Nobody likes the G word.
Even if the one side was wiped out, any peace would be precluded by the reaction of the neighbors or the US.
You can hate the Palestinians or hate the Israelis, neither is going away.

So, the only option is 3.
Every suicide bomber and every Israeli bullet just pushes everone that much further away from reaching 3, which is the only way to peace
No matter who is right, creating kids grow up to become terrorists is NOT going to help

I do think that Sharon holds the keys to this more than Arafat, but not because I assign more guilt to one side or the other.
Israel is a real, cohesive entity, and Sharon is a real politician.
Palestine, for all the flag waving, is not.
I don't think Arafat has the support, ability, authority, or moral right to control the Palestinian 'state' in the same way that Sharon can with Israel.

What you're missing here, is the point that destroys your 3 choice statement. They will never get along. Never. Under any circumstances. The people we are talking about want genocide and the destruction of the Israelis. Getting along is not an option, and if one side is hellbent on genocide, then the other has to return the favor or cease to exist. Since this is the way it has to play out if they continue to exist next to one another, the only option would be to resettle the Palestinians to another region. The arab nations will not do this, because 1. some have already kicked them out, 2. they don't really care about the Palestinians, just their usefulness as a weapon against Israel, and 3. It really wouldn't matter anyway, because even if the Palestinians shut up and lived peacefully, there are plenty of others in the region who wouldn't rest until the Israelis were all dead.

I don't disagree, and will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. ; )

There are good points in your first post too. I don't blame the Israelis for doing what they have done. The Palis deserve it and have no right to claim victimization. But I agree that most of the incursions have done, and will do, little to solve the problem in the long run. All it does is bring the UN down on them and give the Palis an excuse to continue their attacks.

The smart thing to have done after the latest homocide bombings would have been to start building that fence on a line that gives them defensible borders.

1. There are no more Palestinians
2. There are no more Israelis
3. They figure out how to get along

Number 3 has never happened in the course of human history. If you know of an example in which two sides fighting a war stopped because they figured out how to get along, please cite it. A war is stopped when at least one side has militarily defeated the other, otherwise it can continue for generations or centuries.

If the Palestinians defeat the Israelis, all of them will be put to death, as the Palestinians teach their children. So they only possibility is for the Israelis to defeat the Palestinians. In the same way that the Allies defeated the Nazis. Some here have said that this would not suffice to defeat the Palestinians. In that case the Israelis will have to defeat the Palestinians the way that the Assyrians defeated the ancient Kingdom of Israel, and expel the Palestinians from the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

If you do not support this approach then your policy will lead to continual war, or to genocide. The fact that you support another policy, which can never happen, will make no difference.