A New Palestinian State and Prime Minister!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Mr. Anderson, Mar 14, 2003.

  1. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

  2. Sol
    macrumors 68000


    Too little, too late.

    Since President Bush came to power the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has gone downhill. In the context of a war with Iraq I doubt anything the Americans put on the table would seem credible to any Arab nation. Sanctions against Israel is the only way to resolve this crisis. After all Sharon is no better than Saddam when you take into account all the state sponsored terrorism that Israeli forces have inflicted on the Palestinians so far.
  3. macrumors 68040



    I'd take care to lay blame at anybody's feet at this point.

    Please don't forget that the current Palestinian conflict erupted in September of 2000 when Sharon visited the temple (Barak was PM then), two months before the elections in the U.S., three and-a-half, before the President-elect was even known to be Bush

    Yes, it's continued to go downhill ever since it started, but please take care in singling out Bush.
  4. macrumors 68020

    And the only reason it has gone downhill is the intransigence and stupidity of the Palestinians, who reject any offer made to them and refuse to renounce terror.

    Sanctions against Israel is a boneheaded idea. The Palestinians are the problem. Israelis do not hijack airliners, kill unarmed athletes, set off bombs in shopping centers, murder schoolchildren. The Palestinians must renounce terror and put a stop to it. Only then can they be considered part of the human civilization.
  5. macrumors 601


    Some could argue that the occupation of the Palistinian lands is worse than any act that they have thrown at Israel. It is a two edged sword that has to swung very carefully.
  6. macrumors 6502a


    good post.

    i'm very happy to hear any statement regarding a timetable towards palastinian independance. it's necessary to stop the violence in the area and curb anti-american sentiment. it's definately too little, it may very well be too late, but it's a start.
    the important thing is to follow this statement up with the actual release of a timetable and measurable action.

    >EDIT: duke- new 'tar? nice.
  7. macrumors regular


    If there is to be an end to this, Isreal's got to give up the occupied lands. No ifs, ands, buts, about it. Terrorism sucks, and two wrongs don't make a right. Anyway, I don't say this for the sake of Palestine, I say it for the sake of America. As long as we remain an ally of Isreal, and as long as Isreal continues to occupy the West Bank, America will continue to be hated merely through our association. It may not be right, it may not accurately reflect the facts, but it is the perception the arab states have towards America. It would be in America's interest to get Isreal out of the west bank.
  8. macrumors 68000


    I for one am glad, but cautious. I think that the key to any kind of a peace in Israel is the removal of Arafat. Unless he relinquishes all power and influence or is killed, I seriously doubt there will ever be peace.
  9. macrumors 68000


    Re: Too little, too late.

    Just for you.
  10. Moderator emeritus

    As well, any time Israel feels the need, they pull in Palestinians for questioning, which is apparently just this side of torture. If they don't like what the Palestinians are doing, they move in tanks to re-occupy previously vacated areas.

    It's a terrible way these cousins treat each other. :(
  11. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Re: Too little, too late.

    Arafat has lost any credibility he had with the (Free World) But to say Sharon is no better then Saddam is a downright lie or falsehood. Saddam has murdered his own people many many times. Sharon has not. Saddam has paid people to blow themselves up and kill innocent men,women and children. Sharon is at least striking military targets so lets be a little more honest. Sure Palestine needs its own state. But it wont get it using human bombs on the innocent. It wont get it denying Israels right to exist as a nation. It will get it by having wise leaders who want to coexist and live in true peace for everyones benefit. It will get it by putting the palestinian people first and not having some selfish leader whos interests is his own dominance, rule,and fame. ( Arafat)
  12. Sol
    macrumors 68000


    Re: Re: Too little, too late.

    Let me point out that nowhere in my post did I mention anything about Arafat so you cannot assume that I am an apologist of any kind simply for holding the Americans and especially the Israelis accountable for their actions. If you are willing to say that the Palestinians are to blame because they blow up busses, kill children, etc then you are not taking into account the arguably worse atrocities committed by Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians, including children. In the eyes of America Israel may be more legitimate compared to their Palestinian enemies but Israel is after all your ally. Simplifying this conflict to the point where you view Palestinians/Arabs as terrorists and Israelis/Americans as victims is buying into Bush and Sharon's Politics Of Fear.
  13. Sol
    macrumors 68000


    Sharon, Saddam & The Kurds

    Despite Sharon's and now Bush's demand for change of leadership, Arafat is still recognized as the legitimate leader of Palestine by the rest of the world. As for Sharon's military targets, they often include homes of relatives to suicide bombers as well as road vehicles in public streets full of innocent people. As justified as the Israelis and their Ally may feel in attacking civilian targets, civilized people everywhere cringe when they see it on the news.

    About Saddam murdering his own people, you could say that Kurds are to Iraq what Palestinians are to Israel: both Kurds and Palestinians have their land occupied by their more powerful neighbors and neither peoples could say that they are any better for it. The Kurdish issue is also a major reason why America's other ally, Turkey, is not yet in the EU. Do not be under any illusion that Americans are fighting to liberate Kurds in Iraq, not when you turn a blind eye to an ally's treatment of the same peoples.
  14. macrumors member

    I don't care if the US and the allies are fighting in Iraq to free chickens and pigs. Every person in Iraq except for one lives in tyranny, and they will be better off as a result of removing Saddam.

    It is interesting to see you compare the Palestinians to the Kurds. One big difference, of course, is that the Israelis don't use gas on the Palestinians.

    The "Palestinian territories" were never part of a country called Palestine, but rather were held by Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan who never gave the occupants citizenship. Also notice that the Arab states aren't complaining any at the plight of the Kurds.

    If one want to place blame for the lack of peace in the Middle East on Israel, that is fine. However, they bear responsibility mainly insofar as the state of Israel exists, and there are those who do not wish this to be so. It has been said many times and it is still true that if the Palestinians lay down their weapons there will be no more violence and if the Israelis lay down their weapons there will be no more Israel.

    It's too bad that Chruchill didn't create Kurdistan when he carved up the area.
  15. macrumors 6502a


    i think it's a shame they carved up the area in the first place.

    yr right about arab states using the palestinians as leverage. thats all the leverage they have. palestinians for their people, oil for the west. that doesn't change the fact that the charter that created israel also laid the foundation for a palestinian state. one state got made, one didn't. the people who got stuck in the middle (the palastinians) just want what they think is fair. i say give it to them. it shouldn't have taken this long.
  16. macrumors member

    What did you want them to do? Keep the Ottoman empire intact?

    That's right. And the reason that the Palestinian state didn't get made was that the Arab nations attacked Israel instead of agreeing to have a Palestinian state. They have been at war with Israel ever since.

    What some of them think is fair, maybe. However, what is seen as fair by many, and what is taught in Arab schools is that Israel has no right to exist as a state. Israel doesn't appear on their maps. What many of the Arabs want, quite frankly, is to finish what Hitler started. They don't want two states, they want everything from the river to the sea. I don't say give them what they want. I say make them accept two states. This is the central requirement for progress in Middle East peace: Recognition of Israel by Arab states.

    An independenet Palestine was on the table in 2000. Clinton would have been a legitimate hero if Arafat had taken it. It would have been bigger than the 1979 Camp David Accords. Reports suggest that Arafat's advisors told him to take it, but he refused. He turned his back on peace and independence and chose the path of violence.

Share This Page