Terms of Surrender (for Israel)

SmarterTimes.com ^ | 2/17/02 | staff

[Brad’s Gramma]

Pings to you all...

[Brad’s Gramma]

Note to self: THANK Larry Lied for posting this. (gulp)

[EternalVigilance]

Bump!!

[BrooklynGOP]

I thought assisted suicide was illegal? What's next? The Kevorkian peace plan?

[goldstategop]

There is also no chance they would pass in a referendum in Israel, if one were held. It's already forgotten by Tom Friedman/Jerome Segal, that the PLO rejected former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's unprecedented offer to give the PLO a state encompassing 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and half of Jerusalem over two years ago at Camp David. The PLO in fact never even made a counter-offer. What emerged from that outcome is there is no set of concessions Israel could make to the Arabs that would bring about peace, short of agreeing to disappear altogether. And apart from the extreme Left in Israel which is as dedicated to Israel's destruction as the Arabs are, there is no person in Israel who would be inclined to accept the Friedman/Siegal type of settlement, in view of how much worth Arab promises have been. Since Israel is not going to surrender, look for the conflict to interminably drag on. Its not going to be settled in this century for sure.

[EternalVigilance]

Just a personal note...

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Alan Keyes agrees completely with the conclusions drawn by this piece.

Just something for you to think about.

[Alouette]

So, who the heck are Tom Friedman and Jerome Siegal to dictate terms of surrender? Maybe I will make up "Alouette's Mideast Peace Plan" and post it to this forum, why not?

[LarryM]

Friedman is now a proven collaborator with the Saudi dictatorship; the same dictatorship that produced the 15 terrorists who flew planes into our buildings.

[Torie]

Did the savants that wrote in the NY Times address the practical problems at this juncture of resplitting Jerusalem, and propose any ways that are credible to finesse it? Just curious. But then I am a practical kind of guy.

[umgud]

They need to try my peace plan. Land for Terror. In this plan, Israel takes away a piece of land for every terror incident comitted against Israel. The opposition has an abundance of suicide bombers, but not land. How much land they keep is dependant on how peaceful they can be.

[Alouette]

Did the savants that wrote in the NY Times address the practical problems at this juncture of resplitting Jerusalem

My guess is they would liikely recommend the same solution as for the rest of the "settlements"--Juden 'raus!

[JMJ333]

Friedman: "Cast yourselves into the sea and peace will come!"

[Torie]

LOL. Actually, there is a kernal of wisdom in it. There needs to be a widely perceived price in certain quarters for trying to keep up the Israeli body count. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[leadhead]

Why won't these people make Jordan give the Palestinians a state as intended in the 40's?

Why did Jordan use the Paki Air Force to drive out the Palestinians from Jordan?

[alex]

"Why won't these people make Jordan give the Palestinians a state as intended in the 40's?"

This is a part of human nature - nobody cares about any commitment not supported by the use of force.

"Why did Jordan use the Paki Air Force to drive out the Palestinians from Jordan?"

Because they could.

[eclectic]

Here is the "Eclectic Piece Plan":

1. Annex the Gaza Strip to Egypt.

2. Transfer Jews from the Gaza Strip to Israel or America (their choice)

3. Annex the West Bank to Israel

4. Transfer Palestinians from the West Bank to Egypt or Jordan (their choice)

5. Shoot Thomas Friedman dead

[monkeyshine]

I've been through this many times. Splitting Jerusalem is a rediculous proposal, wholly impractical, and completely unfair. It would be a "surrender", and since when does the victor of the wars surrender?

Why is it so impossible? For one, Jerusalem is 80% Jewish. Why on earth should a city that is 80% Jewish (and 100% Israeli) assent to being turned over to the eventual Palestinian state? Second, splitting the city would destroy it's character, charm, and economic vibrancy. Third, even the so-called "Arab East Jerusalem" is 45% Jewish, and maybe not even 30% Palestinian. Why would or should a minority group comprising only 30% of only a small part of the city be granted sovereignty over it?

Moreover, it has been reported numerous times that there is major disagreement even within this 30% Palestinian population of the city being handed over to the PA. It's questionable if even a majority of this 30% minority group would be willing to surrender their Israeli passports, Israeli standards of living, Israeli freedoms of speech and due process for that of Arafat's PA. (It's not really that questionable.. you already know the answer. They might be angry, hurt, dismayed... but they are no fools!). In short, it would be an enormous atrocity for outsiders to dictate the terms of the settlement. It would be the equivalent of repeating what the Palestinians claim happened to them, by either forcing the residents to abandon their citizenships or their homes on the demands of foreigners.

I don't think it's workable at all. The saddest part of all is that only the Israelis are being asked to make such a sacrifice. Why aren't the Palestinians and Arabs being told to forget about Jerusalem, that they have no claim and no chance to get it. At the very least, the residents of "Arab east Jerusalem" should be allowed to have a referendum. Do you want to become part of Palestine, or do you want to remain under Israeli control? 45% of the vote is already a lock for the Israeli side. You would need near 100% unanimity among the remaining 55% to throw the vote to the PA side. By any standard, any way you look at it, Jerusalem should remain undivided and Israeli. Only meddlesome liberal fools who beleive in the inherent good nature of men like Arafat would make such a sacrifice in the face of all evidence to the contrary, and against the wishes of the people such a decision would effect. Friedman is just another of the many blathering Chamberlainesque fools who have a public voice in this ongoing struggle.

[LarryLied]

I thought assisted suicide was illegal. . .

What is it with the New York Times pushing this stuff? Makes as much sense as the NRA coming out for banning handguns or the National Review calling for tax hikes.

Once again, I'm thankful a Republican or Christian conservative did not write this stuff. The New York Times would have savaged him or her.

[Torie]

Thanks for all that typing. It saved me quite a bit or work. That is why I flagged you. :) I have yet to see any serious proposal that is credible involving reverting to the 1967 borders involving Jerusalem. Facts on the ground matter, and the facts have change a lot since 1967. There is a price to pay for losing wars, but beyond that, paying the price to revert will not sell with those that the Palestinians need to sell it too, not now, and not for a very long time. It is DOA.