Do you remember Saeb Erekat? He appeared on a number of Nightline multi-hours programs a decade or so ago. He was always intelligent and wise in his opinions, so I grew to greatly respect him. He is now saying that the two-state solution supported by so many in the world may no longer be a viable way to solve the Palestine-Israeli conflict; he reasoning is that Netanyahu is demanding too much of the land that would become a Palestinian state so that Palestine could not exist on remaining land as a viable state.

He may not only be right, but it is possible that a single state solution is the better way to resolve the problem; in truth, I've always preferred a single state solution. It will mean, however, that Palestine recalibrate its bargaining proposals to make the return and settlement of Palestinian refugees as the principle issue.

You may recall that Israeli-Clinton opposition to the return of refugees is what killed peace in the 90's. Willie would later say that Arafat's insistence on resolving the refugee issue was shortsighted; I thought it was one of the most stupid things the man ever said. 100's of thousands of Palestinians have been living in refugee camps since al Nakba 60 years ago; it is shameful and Willie should have had the sense to know that.

A single-state solution will result in the end of a Jewish state over time because Christians, Muslims, and others will become the majority over time. Zionists know that, so they vehemently oppose allowing refugees to return to their homeland. That still comports, however, with the original goal of Zionism to create an autonomous homeland where they could live in peace.

Erekat also criticizes the split between the Fatah and Hamas factions in Palestine. He didn't say it, but dividing Palestinians was Israel's motivation in turning a blind eye to Hamas when he began to grow in the late 80's and 90's: the factions need to be smart enough to see through that strategy. <link>

God Speed,

David

Therefore, all Israelis are "Zionists", just as virtually all Americans were uber-nationalists following Pearl Harbor. The Israeli politic certainly doesn't think as one in terms of intermediate policy positions. But...the Israeli politic cannot and will not, ever accede to its own dissolution. Call them "Zionists" in the pejorative as you will, but in this regard, they're no different from any other functioning, modern, democratic nation.

And...whilst it may please YOU to think of Israel in its current form, ceasing to exist, the Israeli politic will never stand for it - nor should they. A man can no more concede his own nation, than he can willingly concede his own life. Therefore - rightly or wrongly - righteously or as a matter of "evil Zionist design", ANY "solution" founded on Israel acceding to its one suicide, is no solution at all.

Jordan takes back the hundreds of thousands of Palastians that they threw out of the country in 1970 and 1971.

KA

when I look at a map of the middle-east - specifically Israel and the lands bordering it, something jumps out at me. Israel is tiny and its miniscule lands have been rather densely and productively utilized. The bordering nations - all of which are ostensible "allies" of the Palestinians, are huge...with vast tracts of virtual emptiness. I still have a heckuva time wrapping my little mind around the idea that the only lands relevant and sufficient to address the Palestinian's concerns, are those remarkably few acres currently being used by the Israelis.

Of course....I suppose we could revert to the idea that those millions of non-Israel acres are irellevant, as the Palestinians have a "right" to the Israeli lands. And..that's all well and good, but it's not a solution.

them. As i pointed out, Jordan kicked them out in 1971, they went to Lebonon, who shoved them into the no man's land bordering Israel in the south, Syria either out and out killed them, or put them into squalid refugee camps, and Eygpt pushed them out into the Siani desert.

KA

You have to keep in mind that what the Israeli government wants is a Jewish state not just a state where Jews can live in peace. Furthermore, they don't just want that state to have boundaries short of all of Palestine and part of Syria (the Golan Heights). That said, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE PEOPLE THEY ENCOUNTERED when they began to settle the land? They want to get rid of them in the same way that David did in creating his Kingdom: David used genocide of existing people on the land he wanted. Empires did that sort of thing thousands of years ago, but it is no longer considered 'Kosher'. Zionists refer to it as the Transfer Policy.

Netanyahu doesn't want the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel: he wants them to recognize it as a Jewish state. <link> He wants Palestinians to accept second class citizenship as a condition of living in their own homeland.

If the leadership of the Zionist movement had settled for the land that was allotted to them in UN 181 (a disproportionate amount of land considering the Palestinian and Jewish population), they had a shot at living in peace with their neighbors; instead, they used terrorist tactics to drive people off of their land and out of Palestine. Those people have been living in refugee camps since then. WHY DO THESE PEOPLE NOT HAVE A RIGHT OF RETURN? Why do you and others think they should go live somewhere, and why should neighboring countries have to absorb them?

Israel claims that they have annexed Jerusalem and want to continue to settle the West Bank, so what becomes of the people that are not Jews? They can't use the same roads; they are not permitted to build on their own land; they are being driven out of Jerusalem; they do not have the same access to water; their homes are being demolished (remember American Rachel Corrie who was murdered for attempting to stop home demolitions?).

Israel wants to do what South Africa did: create hellholes in isolated places where unwanted people are forced to live; they want these people to live in an area that is insufficient to create a viable homeland. Ultimately, they want those people to wither or move away: BY DEFINITION, THAT IS GENOCIDE.

WHAT DO YOU WANT THE PALESTINIANS TO DO? Do you want them to stop fighting and surrender their land? You want non-Jews to live in a land where the best land, schools, roads, and living conditions are reserved for Jews: do you call that a Democracy?

What do you want America to do? Should we continue to back Israel in their plans and finance to the tune of billions of dollars? The very least that we should do is to stop helping them. The least we can do is support the Goldstone Report by having it be forwarded to the International Criminal Court. <link> <link> <link> (The first link is the full 452 page report, but the second two are summaries of findings)

.

who upon encountering someone who doesn't speak English, just talks louder in hopes of bridging the language gap. I'm not here to dispute your intepretation of the facts. Perhaps each and every one of your bullet points is spot on. Or...maybe some are colored due to some bias or another. But...it really doesn't matter.

The Israel people - not just the Israeli guvmint...and not just the "Zionists", aren't going to concede their sovereignty. And...you're dreaming if you think that someday..the Israeli democracy will suddenly "see your light" and vote themselves out of existence.

President Clinton was absolutely right. Arafat threw a condition into the mix, that Israel couldn't possibly fulfill. Arafat may've thought they should have been able to. You may think they should've been able to. Heck...all the world's most wonderous minds and 98% of its population might think they should've been able to. But...they couldn't.

First, allow me to iterate that Israel is not a Democracy. Second, I am not suggesting and do not want to see Israelis lose their sovereignty. I want to see peace and democracy for all of Palestine. I am not suggesting that they should surrender their rights, but I am suggesting that justice mandates that the rest of Palestine also enjoy equal rights.

The point of the initial post is that Israel will cease to be a majority Jewish nation in the future if they continue to settle the West Bank and Jerusalem. Now that progress can be slowed down by not allowing refugees to return to their homeland, and I haven't the foggiest idea why you think that Israel can't possibly fulfill that condition for peace. Why can't they? More importantly, how is it morally possible to suggest that those refugees, who were driven off of their land by threats of violence, should not be so entitled.

You casually accept the theft of land by Israel and insist that it is a done deal when it is by no means over; now if by over you mean the elimination of Palestinians as a people, okay, but isn't that exactly why Jews from all over the world wanted to find shelter in Palestine: the Holocaust. Let me also remind you that most of the 14-17 million people murdered in the Holocaust were eliminated so that Hitler could have living space. Isn't that literally what Zionist are demanding?

Did you take the time to read the summary of the Goldstone Report? You suggest a possible bias on my part, so where is my bias? Am I anti-Semitic because I disapprove of Israeli actions? Is that the point you want to float, and does that in any way deny the facts involved. Where are my half-truths? What do you need me to add? What is missing from a concern for justice? Is it my use of bold type or 'all caps' emphasis? By the way, have you examined your own 'possible' biases'?

This post is not just meant for you; all American need to look with an objective eye at what is going on in Palestine. We are spoon-fed a continuous stream of Zionist propaganda and pressured to avoid any support for Palestinian rights. That pressure poses a threat to our national security, so this isn't an esoteric topic. Fortunately, Democrats and (especially) independents are beginning to do that. A perfect example of that pressure is the House anti-Goldstone resolution and the better voting position among Democrats in that house.

In fact, I specifically allowed that every single one of your bullet points may well be spot on - and heck, for the sake of non-argument, I'll stipulate the same for the Goldstone Report.

What I will not and cannot accede to - much less take the less bit seriously - is your absolutely ridiculous assertion that Israel isn't a democracy. Strict definitions of democracy aside - and your personal interpretation of democracy aside - democracy is of course, relative. And....as compared with the rest of the nations on earth, Israel isn't just democratic, they're rather remarkably democratic. And then.....they cannot and will not concede their own soveriegnty, your assertion that they may have no choice, notwithstanding.

Personally by the way, I would suggest that the Israelis would defend their own sovereignty as forcefully and effectively as most any nation on earth, save perhaps, our own. But..what if I'm wrong and you're right? Perhaps..if the Israelis don't "straighten up and fly right" in a manner that would please you, they WILL have their sovereignty stripped from them against their will. Hell...I'll even stipulate to that!

But then...that DOES render your "solution" more than a tad silly. One would have to be awfully simple to accept the idea that in order to preserve their soveriegnty, all they need to do is concede their soveriegnty!

1)government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2)a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. 3)a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4)political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5)the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; <link>

Early definitions of democracy proposed by the ancient Greeks labeled it as majority rule and pointed out that minorities did not have the same automatic protections as the majority. Modern accepted definitions of democracy emphasize political equality and rule by common people.

Palestinians do not enjoy the same rights as Israelis in either Israeli proper or occupied territory. Historically, the charade of equal rights was erected by having the distribution of such things as land and aid being coordinated by non-governmental organizations. These organizations would buy up land within non-occupied territory and distribute it to Jews only.

The discrimination is much more pervasive, however, than that. Palestinian farms, villages, water supplies, homes and other structures are routinely destroyed by the Israeli government. I will post one example but it reflects ubiquitous conduct. <link> At the same time, occupied land is being developed by Israeli settlers who get preferential treatment for water, building permits, and access to roads. Funding for schools is distributed unequally. A really good example of differential treatment is how the Israeli government went about building shelters for people who are within range of missiles being fired by Hamas; the government builds shelters for Israelis but not for Palestinians (see Goldstone).

As I wrote earlier, there are working institutions that provide Democracy for Jews in the state, but those same rights do not apply to non-Jews. That is why Netanyahu and other Zionists want Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state.

Another example of how Palestinians are treated differently involved settling the country in 47-8. Palestinians were driven off of their land and out of the country. The land that they lived on was turned over to Jewish settlers. That is unequal treatment based upon religion.

The simple fact is that Jews and non-Jews do not enjoy the same rights any more than Black people did for centuries in America or any more than Black Africans did in apartheid South Africa. People will point out that Israel is settled by people from Europe who took Western traditions of government; that does not mean that those traditions apply to everyone. Actually, non-European Jews were treated disparately by the government for a long time, but they are making great headway in correcting those inequities.

If people actually have equal rights in Israel and occupied Palestine, who are refugees treated differently than Jews? Why can't they go home if Israel is a Democracy for more than Jews?

sort of hints me at those herein, who when I've referenced our American democracy, have shrieked my stupidity down. For of course shout they, our isn't a democracy (as any idiot should know) but a "constitutional republic".

It's all in the definition. When I'm babbling about flying from point "A" to point "B", as opposed to travelling that distance by train, I may well refer to taking a plane, the actual fact that I flew on a jet nothwithstanding. And for sure, you could regale me with a treatise as to how the A-320 is a JET, not a plane..and that the B-737 is a much better jet than the A-320. But then...that really wouldn't have much to do with my point. The only thing that mattered as to my trip, was that I took to the air rather than the rails.

You may not be down with the form Israeli democracy takes. Nevertheless, it takes that form and will necessarily defend that form. And in the context of my ramble, your suggestion that Israeli democracy is less than perfect, isn't germane except in affirmation of what I'm saying. Israel's Jewish electorate - most all of which enjoys suffrage - will not vote itself out of existence. Therefore, any REAL solution to this issue, has to acknowledge that reality.

As we know, we have a constitutional republic when we have a country that has a constitution and elects people ot represent us. Still, by virtually, all references to constitutional, republican, or democratic government include equalilty among the public as a standard. Why don't you just say that their government is a constitutional republic for Jews or a democracy for Jews?

We can have a more precise discussion about political philosophy if that would help, but that would only be fruitful if it weren't a means of avoiding the ugly truth that Israel discriminates against non-Jews. One of America's greatest characteristics is our empathy for people when we understand their plight. That is what underlay our commitment to never see another Holocaust such as befell Jews in Europe. We don't have that empathy for Palestinians because the information about their plight is systematically whitewashed from our major media. When they finally do see it, we will respond as we usually do, and then this kind of silly dialog will be anachronistic.

God Speed,

David

And....10, 20,30 years from now, we'll all look back on your righteous certitude. It's all good. But of course.....the Israeli democracy will've survived.....and the Palestinians will still be suffering at the hands of their political sponsors, but YOU will be comfortably ensconced at your American computer, bemoaning their plight. Hooray for your righteousness!

I'm all FOR righteousness! Although.....I reserve my especial respect for those who're able to transcend righteousness.