The Neo-Cons win another one in the middle east.Follow

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040415/D81UU64O1.html

Nothing helps the war on terror more than when we ignore the concerns of the muslim street by changing our policy on the Isreal/Palastine situation.

lol like the current administration cares what the UN thinks, well cepting we might find it convient if they would help us in Iraq.

Edit-- I know you are being sarcastic its for some of our other posters who seem to think the current administration can do no wrong.

Edited, Thu Apr 15 03:19:27 2004 by flishtaco

No Gbaji, Bush has just pissed on the so-called Roadmap to Peace, which was the only thing in recent times to hold out even the faintest hope.

The Israelis have been holding on to land they took in the 1967 war, which the UN ordered to be handed back.

And lets not forget that Ariel Sharon started this current unrest. In my opinion, a deliberate attempt to crush the Palestinian hopes for their own State once and for all. Sharon does not want peace, he wants the Palestinians to keep doing what they're doing, and deliberately fosters the image of them as terrorists rather than freedom fighters.

Israel is the senior partner in every sense, they have the power to end this conflict if they so choose. But they continue with their cruel eye-for-an-eye tactics.

And yes the Palestinian suicide bombings are hideous too, but lets not forget this situation started with rock-throwing by Palestinian children, and the Israelis have deliberately escalated it.

This isn't a case of there be two equal sides arguing over a dispute.

This is a case of the US propping up Isreal over and over again with arms, money, and influence since it's creation.

This isn't a deviation from a policy that wasn't working, it's giving up on a policy change from a policy that led to 50 years of turmoil, and returning to that policy.

If you want to make the "what we were doing wasn't working, folks" argument then you'd be against this as it's returning to the thing that wasn't working for decades.

You added "folks" though which means you have no ******* idea what you're talking about and are trying to play to the "Gee, golly I know people say it's compliticated but it sure seems reeel simple to me...it just makes sense..." game for whatever reason.

There's nothing beneficial about doing this other than appeasing hard liners on Isreal. It sets the middle east peace process backwards. There's not even an argument to the contrary.

The point is, the Israelis had already agreed to moving out of these areas, now they have reneged on the deal, at least partially.

Whatever the US thinks they are doing with Israel, it has absolutely nothing to do with achieving peace in the region. The whole deal has purely economic motives. Keeping Israel propped up by making them the recipient of a huge portion of US Foreign Aid (well by far the biggest). And hey, Egypt comes 2nd.

Wouldn't you Americans rather see something else done with those billions of dollars?

Nuke them all!

Yup. That's exactly the point (and the problem). Why did Clintons plan fail? Simple. Arafat simply could not bring any concessions to the table. Not that I don't think he wanted to. The Palestinians wouldn't let him. Same problem with Barak. The result of that debacle was that Arafat almost lost his leadership of the Palestinians, and Barak lost the PMship to Sharon (a hardliner if ever there was one).

Wonderful "peace process" there. Almost got both sides leaders removed from power. Brilliant!


Um... Also. There are concessions here. Or did you not read the article?




Hmmm... So they are "withdrawing Jewish settlers from Gaza and "some areas" of the west bank". However, they're maintaining that other areas of the West Bank will remain populated by Jews. That sounds like a compromise to me Smash. Unless the your definition of compromise does not include: "Giving something up to get something else". I'd say it's textbook.


This offer only seems "unfair" if you are a Palestinian and really believe that you are entitled to your own state, all of the disputed areas turned over to you, and any of your citizens that were displaced from Israel given the right to return there (and given property to boot!). I'm sorry. The Palestinians are going to have to give up something along the way. Heck. During Clinton's administration they were offered 2 out of those three, and refused! This is just another compromise from Israel. I don't hold a lot of hope that Palestine will agree to it, but I think it is important to get the message out that they are the ones who need to be willing to compromise something if they want to get anything.


They don't have a country. They don't have land to call their own. Yet when offered what they supposedly want the most, they refuse because it isn't everything they asked for? What the heck kind of moronic plan is that? Exactly what puts them in a position to demand anything anyway? If Israel was really the evil state they keep trying to imply it is, they'd have simply gathered them all up the put them in Auchwitz style death camps long ago. They haven't. At what point do people realize that the Israelis, while not innocent by any means, are at least trying to come up with a solution that will work for both sides. The Palestinians are *only* looking at what's best for them. They need to kick in and ante up if they want to see things get better...

Are you really this much of an idiot?

Let's say I come to your house, rape you, steal all of your posessions and cut off your leg.

When I call you the next day and offer to return your toaster do you consider it a compromise?

Just curious, because I'd imagine you'd have to, right? I mean history is irrelevant, equity is irrelevant and circumstances are meaningless, right?



Isreal continusouly settles out of Isreal with the express purpose of overwhelming the population of Arabs with Jews. It's done on purpose. It's a defined strategy.


They were, really? When? Let's see what the actuall documentation says, shall we.


Yeah, it's the victim of the rape who needs to be willing to spend a little time in prison to get her reputation back. Why isn't she being more reasonable about it?


They have thousands of kids who's parents were shot in the head by Isreali's for no particular reason who are willing to strap Semtex to themselves and destroy buses, and shopping malls, and birthday parties.


One, what they want most is a two state solution with right of return. When were they offered that?

Two, it's called principle. I realize that in America it's difficult to understand. I realize here, you'd just take the path of least resistance, the best deal at the time and move on, but to some people the idea is more important than the difficulty of achieving it.



Don't be silly, they're not ****'s. They're not going to send rockets laden with explosives to blow up random parts of neighborhoods.

Oh wait.



BY ANNEXING LAND?

That works for both sides? What the **** is wrong with your ability to view current events? I realize it has to be done through the hack lens of the Republican party, but even the most ludicrously pro-Isreal NeoCons don't see this as a step forward in the peace process. They see it as blind support for Isreal because Sharon is having trouble internally with his bribery probe.



When everything's been taken from you...

You don't have a lot to offer in negoiations.