The Jordanian Option

[gev]

there is a rumor going on, first reported in the DebkaFile site : http://www.debka.com. which claims that Jordan will agree for taking under it's control major parts of the West Bank.
whether the rumor is true or not, it's an interesting option.
As we all know The West Bank was Jordanian before the 67 war. afterwards and until now, Jordan refused to have these lands back fearing for the stability of the kingdom. now the King Abdullah understands that Arafat is the largest danger to the stability of his kingdom, as well to Egypt and the entire region.
The Jordanian must also fear the growing influence of Iraq in the West Bank.
I think Israel has a clear Interest of making this happen:
The world will get off our backs about occupation, and somehow I can be sure that no one will claim the Jordan is the occupier now.
Jordan and Israel has both an Interest to stop palestinian militant groups of all kind, and to back off Iran and Iraq influences in these teretories.

What do you think about this option?

[elke]

Sounds like a great idea, if true. Jordan has also demonstrated its ability and willingness to control freaks, albeit under the old King.

[Vic]

Has anyone asked Jordan about it?

[kauffner]

A Palestinian state would just be a haven for terrorists and a base for attacks on Israel. Turning the bulk of the West Bank back to Jordan is the way to go. In the 1970s and 1980s, this was the peace proposal of Israel's Labor party and was called the Allon Plan. Palestinian nationalism has never been anything other than a pretext for terrorism against Israel.

In the 1960s, pan-Arabism was the dominent political identity in the Arab world and attacks on Israel were considered part of the "Arab-Israeli conflict." That suggests an image of little Israel with 6 million people fighting 150 million Arabs. Now it's the "Palestinian-Israeli conflict" and the Arabs are seen as the underdogs, even though nothing substantive has changed.

When Jordan ruled the West Bank, the mainstream Palestinian factions were pro-Jordanian, pro-Syrian (Fatah), and pro-Egyptian (the PLO and the Arab National Movement, now the PFLP). To the Syrians, Palestine was "Southern Syria." The Jordanians and Egyptians were pan-Arabists. Palestinian nationalism was a pretty obscure viewpoint until the Arab leaders started pumping it up after 1967.

Iraq was ruled by the same Hashemite royal family as Jordan until 1958. There is talk of putting the Hashemite pretender on the Iraqi throne after Saddam is removed. Jordan and Iraq could then recreate the "Arab Union" they had in the 1950s. Taking responsibility for the West Bank would be a small price for the Hashemites to pay in order to gain access to Iraq's oil wealth.

[takeo]

"There is talk of putting the Hashemite pretender on the Iraqi throne after Saddam is removed. "

Did anyone ask the iraqi's?

anyway, it's a good idea, than Jordan will make palestine independant within months and there will be a Palestinian state after all.

[kauffner]

Who asked the Palestinian Arabs whether they they wanted Arafat? He was chosen as their representative by the Arab League at a summit in Rabat in 1974. Arabs on the West Bank weren't consulted until the 1996 election, by which time it was understood that Arafat's gunmen would blow away anyone who posed a serious threat.

Faisal I became the first Hashemite king of Iraq in 1921 after a referendum in which he received 96 percent of the vote.

Jordan is the Arab world's model state. Those who want to live to as law abiding civilians will prefer to King Abdullah to Arafat. The others can have their 72 virgins.

[Vic]

Originally posted by kauffner
Jordan is the Arab world's model state.
Jordan gives jail term to former MP
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=16052002-095758-8974r

[Vic]

Originally posted by takeo
anyway, it's a good idea, than Jordan will make palestine independant within months and there will be a Palestinian state after all.
Funny they didn't do it between 1948 and 1967...

[Mediocrates]

In 1951 the Jordanian King, the Great Grandfather of the current king was assassinated at the al Aqsa mosque by a Palestinian. This lead in part to a deep founded distrust between Hussein and the Palestinians even though he allowed them to fight the IDF as war by by proxy. In September 1970 the PLO attempted to overthrow Hussein and in the Jordanian civil war were pushed back over the Jordan river by tanks and artillery of the Jordanian army. Which is where Jordanians like the armed contingent of the PLO - over THERE.

Simultaneously the Syrians sent an armed column of 250 tanks into Jordan to force the issue. Hussein panicked and called up Nixon asking for help. Nixon begged a favor of the IDF (or strong armed them) who promptly attacked the Syrian mobile armour and thereby kept Hussein on the throne.

I doubt the PLO would accept Jordanian rule any more than they would accept Israeli rule.

[takeo]

one thing is for sure: millions more of Palestinians in Jordan would be a serious tread to the king, he would get rid of the WB as soon as possible.
Also 2002 isn't the 50's or 60's, nowadays Palestinians after years of occupation would no longer accept foreign occupation, nor would the Arab world or the UN. By the way Jordan relinquished the WB to the palestinians for some reasons...

"Faisal I became the first Hashemite king of Iraq in 1921 after a referendum in which he received 96 percent of the vote. "

Gee, I guess that election was really democratic and free :rolleyes:
(by the way in 1921 Iraq was still colonised by the english)

[Mediocrates]

"Also 2002 isn't the 50's or 60's, nowadays Palestinians after years of occupation would no longer accept foreign occupation, nor would the Arab world or the UN"

That is of course, true. It is equally true though that neighbor states would put enormous pressure on Palistan to accept their refugees as well. Since 2/3rds of all Palestinians in the world live under Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptian enforced dominion, in camps those countries are waiting for an excuse to expel them into another country. Those neighbor states are not as bold as the Kuwaitis who simply kicked out all their Palestinians workers under the banner of rebuilding the country in 1990-1, so they have had to put up the appearance of care while fomenting revolt and developing the photogenic poster child projects of refugee-ism against the west and Israel. But as soon as there is an out, they're out.

[kauffner]

takeo: Do you think you are clairvoyent? You know what the Arabs will accept, what the Palestinians will accept, and what the U.N. will accept. You don't give any basis for your conclusions, you just seem to take it as a given that the international community channels through you. Is it not an amazing coincidence that the only solution these groups will "accept" is a Palestinian state, which also happens to be your pet hobby horse? Perhaps these people are currently opposed, but it is possible that they will change their minds. After American troops liberate Baghdad, the Middle East is going to be a very different place -- no more bounties for suicide terrorists, for one thing. More to the point, none of the groups you mention are in a position to be accepting or rejecting.

[takeo]

Yes, they are in such a position, the US may be a superpower but doesn't have absolute power in the region.
And Bush today said in Germany he will not invade Iraq (you call it "liberation", but than of course king Leopold of Belgium called the colonisation of congo liberation as well...) . An attempt on Iraq (taht has never attacked the US) would even enhance instability and hate against the US and therefor terrorism.
The UN and the Arab world for many years are emphazizing the right of the Palestinians to have an own state, it is very unlikely they would change soon. Also mediocrates is right that a solution for the refugees has to found at the same time as the establishment of a Palestinian state.

[kauffner]

takeo: Bush said only, "I have no war plans on my desk." I guess he keeps them on his shelf. :) He has said that before, anyway.

Iraq is almost certainly the source of the anthrax in those letters sent last year -- I'd say that's an attack. If Saddam isn't punished, I guarentee he'll attack again. He attacked the USS Stark in 1987. The U.S. didn't react, Saddam decided we were wimps, and the invasion of Kuwait was the result. Ordinary Iraqis seem to hate Saddam even more than Afghans hated the Taliban.

Arabs can keep emphasizing Palestinian statehood all they like, but that doesn't mean they'll get it.

[takeo]

kauffner you're really a die-hard imperialist...

"Iraq is almost certainly the source of the anthrax in those letters sent last year -- I'd say that's an attack."

Wrong, those anthrax was prooved to come from American laboratoria. My guess is that the CIA or FBI produced those anthrax-letters as an excuse to bring iraq in the war on terrorism(iraq did not attack us-targets, so there had to be found a link to dispose Saddam).
"If Saddam isn't punished, I guarentee he'll attack again. He attacked the USS Stark in 1987. The U.S. didn't react, Saddam decided we were wimps, and the invasion of Kuwait was the result. "

in 1987 iraq was the ally of the US against Iran. Iraq was very much punished for invading Kouweit, much more than israel will ever be punished for occupying the WB, the golan heights and gaza, even years after kouweit was returned iraq is still being punished and the US and GB, against the whole world, seem to be keen on keeping the embargo and starving the iraqi people, they know iraq hasn't any more nuclear or chemical weapons but they want saddam out. (two un-directors of food for oil-programm quited for that reason, they explicitly said so)

"Ordinary Iraqis seem to hate Saddam even more than Afghans hated the Taliban. "

that's not true, most Iraqi people, both in private and in public and in the foreign, support Saddam against the US, they don't blame saddam for their poverty but the US. I think with the currrent intifadeh (which is daily on the news in iraq) this anti-US sentiments are even stronger than two years ago. The US made saddam from a puppet dictator to an all-Arab hero, not only in Iraq but in the whole Arab world.

"Arabs can keep emphasizing Palestinian statehood all they like, but that doesn't mean they'll get it."

Well Israel will not get peace as long as there is no palestinian state, even sharon knows that.

[Gatorade]

Takeo, you have a different perspective on things. I do enjoy hearing your perspective because I haven’t heard it before but this last post I have to question.

How can you compare Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank? Israel told Jordan not to get involved in the 1967 War. Jordan did anyway and attacked Israel after they thought Egypt was winning its battle against Israel. After Jordan attacked, Israel fought back and took land and offered to give it back a week later for peace. How does this compare to Iraq who invaded Kuwait. Not an very good comparison.

Let’s ask the Kurds what they think of Saddam.

The other Arab nations don’t like Saddam. This was very apparent when Israel flew over their air space to bomb Iraq in 1981. The Arab nations complained a little but they didn’t put up much of a fuss. When the Arab nations formed an alliance with the US in the Gulf War, this showed they really don’t like Saddam.

And nice job trying to concoct a conspiracy theory against the CIA. That is a bit of a stretch, no?

[takeo]

thanks, i think some people on this forum have more or less the same opinion as me.

"How can you compare Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank? Israel told Jordan not to get involved in the 1967 War. Jordan did anyway and attacked Israel after they thought Egypt was winning its battle against Israel. After Jordan attacked, Israel fought back and took land and offered to give it back a week later for peace. How does this compare to Iraq who invaded Kuwait. Not an very good comparison. "

Actually jordan signed a pact with egypt, so if Egypt would be attacked, Jordan would defend egypt (as if iraq would occupy parts of SA because it defended kouweit). Israel knew that.
Israel attacked Egypt the first, and occupied parts of Egypt, so there is certainly analogy.

"Let’s ask the Kurds what they think of Saddam.

The other Arab nations don’t like Saddam. This was very apparent when Israel flew over their air space to bomb Iraq in 1981. The Arab nations complained a little but they didn’t put up much of a fuss. When the Arab nations formed an alliance with the US in the Gulf War, this showed they really don’t like Saddam.
?"

Yes, of course the Iraqi Kurds hate Saddam very much, i forgot to mention that, you are right about that, i meant the Iraqi Arabs.
and yes the other regimes didn't like Saddam very much, to say at least. However since the 90's he is very popular in Arab countries and less hated among the ruling regimes because his country was constantly targetted, starved and bombed by the US that wanted to extend its rule to iraq. He became the sympathic underdog against the much hated superpower and friend of israel for the Arab masses. Also arab regimes see iraq no longer as a treat and want the US-actions against iraq as well as the embargo to end. Any support for a new war against Saddam would end in a popular uprising, that's why even longtime allies as SA refused to cooperate.

"And nice job trying to concoct a conspiracy theory against the CIA. That is a bit of a stretch, no"

well, it's just a guess as i said, there is no evidence supporting this, but it would be a very logical and realistic (if you consider the precedents and conditions ...) possibility.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by takeo

Well Israel will not get peace as long as there is no palestinian state, even sharon knows that.

The problem is that Sharon knows that Israel won't get peace after a Palestinian state either.

[kauffner]

Originally posted by takeo
Wrong, those anthrax was prooved to come from American laboratoria. My guess is that the CIA or FBI produced those anthrax-letters as an excuse to bring iraq in the war on terrorism(iraq did not attack us-targets, so there had to be found a link to dispose Saddam).
Sounds to me like you are in deep conspiracy territory. Did a plane really crash into the Pentagon? Why didn't those Jews show up for work on September 11? You might want to check out that grassy knoll. There could have been a second gunman, you know.

One of the 9/11 hijackers had earlier sought treatment for cutaneous anthrax. Bin Laden implied that his group was responsible for the anthrax mailings in an interview with Al Jezeera. He doesn't exactly confess, but surely an innocent man would deny the accusation, especially if he was really being framed by the U.S. government. See http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/index.html

Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 attack, went to Prague in April to meet with the head of Iraqi intelligence. He could have obtained vials of Iraqi anthrax at that time.

The FBI's theory that it was a "lone American" just doesn't make sense. The anthrax sent to Senator Leahy is highly sophisticated and includes a chemical additive, something that is beyond the capability of a mad scientist working in his garage.

in 1987 iraq was the ally of the US against Iran.
In 1987, Iraq was a Soviet ally and the U.S. was sending arms to Iran. Don't you remember Iran-Contra?

that's not true, most Iraqi people, both in private and in public and in the foreign, support Saddam against the US.
There been a string of defectors recently who say morale in the Iraqi army is very low now. If his own army isn't behind him, it's unlikely the general population is. Also, I think it's safe to say that Iraq's ethnic minorities consider Saddam enemy number one -- and they are about 50 percent of Iraqi's population. The popularity Saddam does have is like Bin Laden's. It will disappear the moment he looks like a loser.

The US made saddam from a puppet dictator to an all-Arab hero, not only in Iraq but in the whole Arab world.
Wouldn't that make him -- gasp -- U.S. supported? Isn't that reason enough to whip him like a rented mule?

Well Israel will not get peace as long as there is no palestinian state, even sharon knows that.
What you don't seem to understand it that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not about a Palestinian state and such a state is therefore irrelevant in resolving it. The claim that the conflict is about land occupied in 1967 ignores the fact that the conflict pre-dates 1967. It will continue as long as regional powers like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are stoking the fires. If the Palestinians get a state and these powers are still eager to finance anti-Israeli terrorism, that state will simply function as base from which to launch attacks on Israel. Saddam and the rest care nothing about Palestinian nationalism except as a weapon to use against Israel.

From 1939 to 1987, the Arabs living in Palestine/Israel were essentially passive in a drama that rivets the world and supposedly centers on them. The Intifada that broke out in 1987 was the result of Iran's financing and promotion of Hamas, not a product of the Palestinian nationalist movement.

[takeo]

Even sharon knows a palestinian state is the only POSSIBLE chance for israel to live in peace, if not he would not support it (of course i don't support the man, he would like to send all palestinians to hell, but he knows that's not an option)

"What you don't seem to understand it that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not about a Palestinian state and such a state is therefore irrelevant in resolving it. The claim that the conflict is about land occupied in 1967 ignores the fact that the conflict pre-dates 1967. It will continue as long as regional powers like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are stoking the fires. If the Palestinians get a state and these powers are still eager to finance anti-Israeli terrorism, that state will simply function as base from which to launch attacks on Israel. Saddam and the rest care nothing about Palestinian nationalism except as a weapon to use against Israel.
From 1939 to 1987, the Arabs living in Palestine/Israel were essentially passive in a drama that rivets the world and supposedly centers on them. The Intifada that broke out in 1987 was the result of Iran's financing and promotion of Hamas, not a product of the Palestinian nationalist movement."

I think you understand very little of the conflict. the most important reason why the Arab world always opposed Israel is exactly the palestinian question. Palestinians already fought
against zionism long before the rest of the arab world. In fact palestinian resistance againts israel dates back long before radical regimes came to power in Iraq or Iran, and neighbouring arab states have not attacked israel anymore untill 1973, which was a reaction to the 1967 occupation. In fact terorism against israel and the intifadeh were almost always palestinian actions, after 1967 more of course because since than millions suffered under direct israeli occupation,the intifadeh pre-dates Hamas and was a total palestinian initiative, even the plo in Tunis was not involved in this. Because palestinians are the ones that suffer from israel, not other arab states. The only exceptionis maybe libanese resistance when israel invaded that country. The support from for example iran was welcome financial extra but the most important was the 100's of 1000 palestinians ready to sacrifice their life.
the palestinians suffer from occupation and etnic cleansing, millions live in refugee-camps, this is really the best possible environment for terrorism and hate to cultivate. Also the occupation and refugee-question is the real reason why Arab countries hate israel, that's why syria and SA offered recognition of israel ifthose are solved, there is no other reasonable reason why those countries would keep fighting israel. Arabs are no anti-semites by nature, jews and Arabs lived together during many centuries and still in many cases.

[takeo]

"Sounds to me like you are in deep conspiracy territory. Did a plane really crash into the Pentagon? Why didn't those Jews show up for work on September 11? You might want to check out that grassy knoll. There could have been a second gunman, you know. "

there is nothing that may lead one to this theory, the mossad doesn't use suicide-commanders.

"One of the 9/11 hijackers had earlier sought treatment for cutaneous anthrax. Bin Laden implied that his group was responsible for the anthrax mailings in an interview with Al Jezeera. He doesn't exactly confess, but surely an innocent man would deny the accusation, especially if he was really being framed by the U.S. government. See http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/ge...view/index.html "

well, maybe those terrorists would love to write this on their own count, however how would they get anthrax from american laboratories?

"Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 attack, went to Prague in April to meet with the head of Iraqi intelligence. He could have obtained vials of Iraqi anthrax at that time. "

this story has been prooved inconclusive and false by czech officials, that's why it was no longer used by the White House to isolate Iraq. By the way it was not iraqi anthrax but anthrax made in the us-laboratories that was used (that's why they say it was a lone american radical who did it).

"The FBI's theory that it was a "lone American" just doesn't make sense. The anthrax sent to Senator Leahy is highly sophisticated and includes a chemical additive, something that is beyond the capability of a mad scientist working in his garage. "

Yes, i agree, besides it was the same kind of anthrax used in american official laboratories by the army, so that's why i think it was an attempt to isolate and indict iraq of terrorism.
Iraq is doing at the time anything to make itself more moderate in the eyes of its Arab neighbours ( a quite succesfull policy) and russia, china and Europe, the only radical actions it will conduct will be against israel, because that can boost his image in the arab world without any consequences.




"In 1987, Iraq was a Soviet ally and the U.S. was sending arms to Iran. Don't you remember Iran-Contra? "

it was a us-ally too, and perceived as such by the American public against arch-ennemy iran, that's why the iran-contragate scandall provoked such heavy emotions in the US. it was not to support iran, but to support the contra's by illegal financement (just as they supported the illegal war in laos by cultivating drugs)





"There been a string of defectors recently who say morale in the Iraqi army is very low now. If his own army isn't behind him, it's unlikely the general population is. Also, I think it's safe to say that Iraq's ethnic minorities consider Saddam enemy number one -- and they are about 50 percent of Iraqi's population. The popularity Saddam does have is like Bin Laden's. It will disappear the moment he looks like a loser. "

Bin laden is by most Arabs perceived as a criminal.
Morale is low in the army because of the very poor economic conditions and payment, yet if his army wasn't behind him it would have been easy for the us to dispose him and organise a military coup, it is exactly the lack of opposition against Saddam (except kurdish in the north and pro-iranian ayatollahs in the south) that led the us to think about a military invasion.
everyone who went to iraq destifies about the feelings of most iraqi's which are very strong, which is only normal after years of embargo maintained by the us and GB and weekly military aggressions that killed more than 1 million people together (and also a cancerrate that is 10 times as high in territories where the us bombed the most).
the most part of iraq are Arabs, kurds are only about 15-20% the rest are arabs.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People

http://www.zmag.org/everestiraq.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1506000/1506151.stm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indxone4.htm

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
The problem is that Sharon knows that Israel won't get peace after a Palestinian state either.
One of the theories currently in circulation is that a Palestinian state would have the advantage that Israel wouldn't be responsible for it or the security of its population. Therefore any attack on Israelis would be legally considered an act of aggression by a foreign state, making it easier for Israel to retaliate and imposing less restraint on it.
Any opinions on it?

[takeo]

That's right, Israel's retaliation would be legal and internationally accepted in that case (of course still within the borders of the Geneva-conventions)

[Vic]

Originally posted by takeo
That's right, Israel's retaliation would be legal and internationally accepted in that case (of course still within the borders of the Geneva-conventions)
The conclusion being that the main reason to create a Palestinian state is that it would be easier to attack Palestinians without mercy...

[takeo]

well, it would be one of the many reasons, and only IF the palestinians would attack israel.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Vic

One of the theories currently in circulation is that a Palestinian state would have the advantage that Israel wouldn't be responsible for it or the security of its population. Therefore any attack on Israelis would be legally considered an act of aggression by a foreign state, making it easier for Israel to retaliate and imposing less restraint on it.
Any opinions on it? I think I posted something similar in a thread some months ago. One of the pitfalls is that the crazy bastards could get their hands on powerful weapons.

[kauffner]

Originally posted by Vic

One of the theories currently in circulation is that a Palestinian state would have the advantage that Israel wouldn't be responsible for it or the security of its population. Therefore any attack on Israelis would be legally considered an act of aggression by a foreign state, making it easier for Israel to retaliate and imposing less restraint on it.
Any opinions on it?
This strikes me as an absolutely moronic idea. A Palestinian state would persumably be able to import arms in unlimited amounts. The anti-Semites in the U.N. will still condemn Israel no matter what what it does.

Didn't we go down this road once before in Oslo? It only inspired Hamas and the other rejectionists to redouble their efforts. Outrage against Oslo is said to have been a major factor in radicalizing Atta, the 9/11 ringleader. That's outrage at the agreement itself, not the fact that some terms weren't fufilled.

[elke]

I don't think that fear of radicalizing the Attas of the world should really be an issue. The issue is whether or not the nascent Palestinian state would have the desire and the ability to control their freaks and flakes. The issue is also whether or not they are ready to grow up: stop being victims and start looking after their own interests, instead of looking to the "big daddy" for salvation.

[Vic]

Originally posted by takeo
well, it would be one of the many reasons, and only IF the palestinians would attack israel.
Any reason to believe they won't?

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic

Any reason to believe that they won't?

Maybe they will have an epiphany...

[kauffner]

takeo: When you say that the anthrax in the letters came from a U.S. lab, I suppose you are referring to the fact that it is the Ames strain. This strain was isolated at the University of Iowa. Nowadays, it is the standard strain of laboratory anthrax and is used in many labs, both military and civilian. Anthrax is a disease of cattle, so it's not just biowarfare people who are interested in it. It is not a controlled substance. If you give the appearance of being a legitimate researcher, labs will send you samples. It would therefore not have been difficult for Iraqi intelligence to obtain a sample of the Ames strain. We know they obtained a sample of Vollum, another anthrax strain orginally isolated in the U.S., in this fashion. Iraq attempted to obtain the Ames strain from a British company in 1988. But obtaining a sample of anthrax is only the first step in creating an anthrax bioweapon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10804-2001Nov24?.html

the palestinians suffer from occupation and etnic cleansing, millions live in refugee-camps, this is really the best possible environment for terrorism and hate to cultivate.

The best possible environment for terrorism is when the government's education and propaganda machinery promote it, as is the case under the PA.

Also the occupation and refugee-question is the real reason why Arab countries hate israel, that's why syria and SA offered recognition of israel ifthose are solved, there is no other reasonable reason why those countries would keep fighting israel.

Ordinary Muslim Arabs had an intense hated of Jews even in pre-Zionist Palestine. Under the British mandate, the Arabs would riot and revolt in order to protest Jewish immigration, land purchase, and activity on the Temple Mount. The Saudis helped finance the 1936-38 revolt. Thus the disease pre-dates both the occupation and refugee issues. Pan-Arabism, Palestinian nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and sympathy for the plight of the refugees are merely ways to dress up this primitive tribal hated and give it a degree of respectability.

The Saudis have not even contacted Israel regarding their peace plan. Israel couldn't accept it if it wanted to. The Saudis are proposing the plan to the U.N. as something the U.N. should adopt. The plan is not about bilateral relations between Israel and Saudi. The present Saudi and Syrian regimes are highly unlikely to recognize Israel under any circumstances.

this story has been prooved inconclusive and false by czech officials, that's why it was no longer used by the White House to isolate Iraq.
Some people have questioned whether there was a meeting in April 2001, but the Czechs have repeatedly confirmed that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in June 2000.

[Iraq] was a us-ally too, and perceived as such by the American public against arch-ennemy iran, that's why the iran-contragate scandall provoked such heavy emotions in the US. it was not to support iran, but to support the contra's by illegal financement
The "scandal" part of Iran-Contra was that the proceeds of the arms sales were not deposited into the general treasury as required by law, but rather diverted to the Nicaraguan resistance. There was never any question of the arms sales being a betrayal of Iraq since no one in America thought of the Iraqis as allies at the time. This nonsense about Iraq being a U.S. ally never even came up until after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. It was at that point that the left-wing press decided to portray Saddam as the new Noriega. (BTW, Nicaragua has an elected pro-American president these days, a vindication of the U.S. strategy of using the resistance to pressure the communists into holding elections.)

Bin laden is by most Arabs perceived as a criminal.
As soon as the World Trade Center was hit, a wave of ecstasy swept through the Arab world. Bin Laden was more popular than Saddam ever was or ever will be (unless of course Saddam fulfills his vow to nuke Tel Aviv). Now that Bin Laden has been defeated, he can't be a hero anymore. But he can still be a victim. The new line from the Muslim street is that the Jews destroyed the WTC and therefore Bin Laden is a falsely accused innocent.

the most part of iraq are Arabs, kurds are only about 15-20% the rest are arabs.
The Shiites are at least 60 percent of Iraq's population. The ruling Sunni Arab ethnic group is only 17 percent of the population.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/6/smyth-f.html

[takeo]

"Any reason to believe they won't?"

Yes, many reasons, look at the discussion about that in other treads.


"takeo: When you say that the anthrax in the letters came from a U.S. lab, I suppose you are referring to the fact that it is the Ames strain. This strain was isolated at the University of Iowa. Nowadays, it is the standard strain of laboratory anthrax and is used in many labs, but military and civilian. Anthrax is a disease of cattle, so it's not just biowarfare people who are interested in it. It is not a controlled substance. If you give the appearance of being a legitimate researcher, labs will send you samples. It would therefore not have been difficult for Iraqi intelligence to obtain a sample of the Ames strain. We know they obtained a sample of Vollum, another anthrax strain orginally isolated in the U.S., in this fashion. Iraq attempted to obtain the Ames strain from a British company in 1988. But obtaining a sample of anthrax is only the first step in creating an anthrax bioweapon. "

That's right, but this is certainly no evidence that iraq did it, because all the information the Western information services possessed indicated that Iraq didn't have that strain. in fact anyone could have done it, including CIA or FBI.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...2001Nov24?.html




"The best possible environment for terrorism is when the government's education and propaganda machinery promote it, as is the case under the PA. "

of course the schoolsystem and radio of the PA will not praise the israeli (as the israeli schoolsystem and television will not praise the palestinians), but the the against israel is not coming from there from from years of occupation, denyal of their rights, ethnic cleansing and destruction of their houses or lifes. In fact nobody will be suicide-bomber just because of propaganda, you have to feel real deep and personal hate to conduct such actions. the hate existed well before 1993 as well, that's why the first intifadeh erupted. The only reason to take that hate away is to take the reason for hate away.
You are not going to tell me that Americans hate osama bin laden because of the propaganda? The french still hate the germans for what they did in WWII, this is not because of propaganda...




"Ordinary Muslim Arabs had an intense hated of Jews even in pre-Zionist Palestine. Under the British mandate, the Arabs would riot and revolt in order to protest Jewish immigration, land purchase, and activity on the Temple Mount. The Saudis helped finance the 1936-38 revolt. Thus the disease pre-dates both the occupation and refugee issues. Pan-Arabism, Palestinian nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and sympathy for the plight of the refugees are merely ways to dress up this primitive tribal hated and give it a degree of respectability. "

You call it pre-zionist palestine, which is wrong, because the colonisation of the historic palestine was already going on.
Jews lived mostly in peace with Arabs before the start of massive zionist immigration, even in Jerusalem, where jews have maintained a community during many centuries.
Of course the facts in 1948 and in 1967 made the anger and hate against israel more widespread, that's when jews started to emigrate from Morocco, iraq, Egypt, etc.



"The Saudis have not even contacted Israel regarding their peace plan. Israel couldn't accept it if it wanted to. The Saudis are proposing the plan to the U.N. as something the U.N. should adopt. The plan is not about bilateral relations between Israel and Saudi. The present Saudi and Syrian regimes are highly unlikely to recognize Israel under any circumstances. "

because this international conflict needs an international solution, israel is not the only party involved. the saoudi's and Syria have explicitly offered recognition of Israel...






"The "scandal" part of Iran-Contra was that the proceeds of the arms sales were not deposited into the general treasury as required by law, but rather diverted to the Nicaraguan resistance. There was never any question of the arms sales being a betrayal of Iraq since no one in America thought of the Iraqis as allies at the time. This nonsense about Iraq being a U.S. ally never even came up until after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. It was at that point that the left-wing press decided to portray Saddam as the new Noriega. (BTW, Nicaragua has an elected pro-American president these days, a vindication of the U.S. strategy of using the resistance to pressure the communists into holding elections.) "

so now you are supporting the use of terrorism to gain political influence in a country? so OK, if the US can, the palestinians can too. by the way the sandinists were no communists just perceived as such, the elections happened with many billions of us-support for the opposition, and since 10 years the poverty in Nicaragua has only increased, it is now the second poorest country in the western hemisphere. in the last elections when Ortega could win the US has again given billions of aid and as well the catholic church was involved, the us also warned they would not accept ortega as president, which means another war. This is the US-version of democracy in the thrith world...
anyway, about us- and western support for Saddam Houssein during the iraq-iran-war:

"The United States and Britain have a lot to apologize for
over their support of Iraq while Saddam Hussein was building up his military
might, a British minister said Friday.
In a speech to parliament defending the current sanctions against Iraq,
Peter Hain -- a junior minister in the Foreign Office under the Labor
government -- acknowledged the West had played a supportive role in the
early years of Saddam's rule.
In that period the Iraqi leader was preparing to fight his neighbors, first
Iran, and later Kuwait.
"The West, including Britain and the U.S., have a lot to apologize for about
allowing the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to get to the strength that
it achieved," Hain said.
"After all, the last (British) Tory government actually armed him, directly
and indirectly," he said."
"

"Last week, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed regret at
American support for Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, saying "aspects of
U.S. policy toward Iraq during its conflict with Iran appear now to have
been regrettably short-sighted."

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00400.html


"As soon as the World Trade Center was hit, a wave of ecstasy swept through the Arab world. Bin Laden was more popular than Saddam ever was or ever will be (unless of course Saddam fulfills his vow to nuke Tel Aviv). Now that Bin Laden has been defeated, he can't be a hero anymore. But he can still be a victim. The new line from the Muslim street is that the Jews destroyed the WTC and therefore Bin Laden is a falsely accused innocent. "

How do you know that, have you made personal statistics? All the Arabs i spoke to are against Bin laden as an extremist, and polls by gallup indicate the same. the first thing Arafat did when the 11/9 happened was giving blood.
By the way unfortunately Bin laden isn't defeated yet.





"The Shiites are at least 60 percent of Iraq's population. The ruling Sunni Arab ethnic group is only 17 percent of the population"


actually sunnites are 30%, and Saddam and most of the ruling elite are one of them, however shiites are no ethnic group but just a religious group, just as catholic americans are no ethnic group either, they all speak Arab and consider themselves as Arabs. Sadam is reported to be popular among them as well (only some fundamentalist ayatollahs resist his rule from iran)

[kauffner]

takeo: The anthrax attacks must have taken months or years to prepare. A batch of letters were sent out immediately after the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, I assume as protest against the bombing. Who knew months in advance that the U.S. would attack Afghanistan? Only Al Qaeda. Where would Al Qaeda get anthrax? Probably not the CIA or the FBI. Surely Bin Laden would have disassociated himself from the letters if he thought the U.S. government was behind them.

You call it pre-zionist palestine, which is wrong, because the colonisation of the historic palestine was already going on. Jews lived mostly in peace with Arabs before the start of massive zionist immigration, even in Jerusalem, where jews have maintained a community during many centuries.
So the Middle East was all goodness and light until Zionism came and spoiled everything? There is plenty of the documentation to show that the hated of Jews by Palestinian Arabs pre-dates Zionism. A dispatch by a British consul in 1850 discusses the persecution of Jews in Hebron and states that the "Austrian Jewish Agent [is] frequently beaten in the streets there." Of course, Muslims weren't out to exterminate Jews in those days, only to constantly remind them of their inferior status. See http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/nationalism.html

[gev]

Originally posted by takeo
of course the schoolsystem and radio of the PA will not praise the israeli (as the israeli schoolsystem and television will not praise the palestinians)

Nobody talks about praising Israel, but it seems you haven't seen the televised brodcast of the palestinian national TV, I cant say I am a constant viewer, but the Israeli media brings from time to time the incitments and the calls for violence from there.
but why go that far? Arafat called for a million matyrs (Shahid) to come to Jerusalem, we all know what that word presents, now you think he ment go pray, maybe?


Originally posted by takeo
but the the against israel is not coming from there from from years of occupation, denyal of their rights, ethnic cleansing and destruction of their houses or lifes. In fact nobody will be suicide-bomber just because of propaganda, you have to feel real deep and personal hate to conduct such actions. the hate existed well before 1993 as well, that's why the first intifadeh erupted.

I have two things to say about that:
1. There are many Arabs around the world that expressed their wish to be a martyr by being a suicide bomber: Saddam hussien showed his suicide bomber legion (or whatever), in Protests in Arab Countries and European countries. Are they under Israeli Occupation? the fact is that the suicide bomber is the way they fight, they chose this way because they know it hurts the most, they dont care who they bomb, he could be an Israeli-Arab and a Gush-Shalom activist - thats not something that can be caused by any occupation, but by brain-wash. This is not some act by desperate men, it is a well funded, well organized operation.

2. I havent heard any Jew expressing his wish to blow himself up near Germans after the holocoust, or wanting to blow himself up near palestinians.

a few days ago there was a report that cancer patients and other terminal disease patients are recruted for the terrorist activities, their family will be well paid.

QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
You are not going to tell me that Americans hate osama bin laden because of the propaganda? The french still hate the germans for what they did in WWII, this is not because of propaganda...[/QUOTE]

yes, do they want to blow themselves up?


Originally posted by takeo
the saoudi's and Syria have explicitly offered recognition of Israel...


And in the meantime finance Terror activities around the World.


The only reason to take that hate away is to take the reason for hate away.

There will always be a reason, when the occupation ends there will be other reasons, in a peace process there are compromises so we can't have everyone happy. especially Terror groups like Hamas, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad and others, they will continue to operate with their activists, using Iran ,Syria and Iraq support. when there is no one to stop them, they will grow. Thats why Israel would a palestinian leader that can and will stop these terror activities, and uuntil then It is bound to fight against these groups in order to assure it's safety.

All this said, I do agree that many palestinians who support armed attacks against Israelies will stop supporting it, once the occupation is over, but as I said it is not enough, because there will be many who will still support it. That's why the way to go, in my opinion, is some uniliteral steps: dismantle isolated settlements and fortify and create a border in the West bank. I dont think these steps will reduce the support for armed attacks against all Israelis but I dont think it will rise either. and it will be alot harder for palestinians to attack.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by gev
I think Israel has a clear Interest of making this happen:
The world will get off our backs about occupation, and somehow I can be sure that no one will claim the Jordan is the occupier now.
Jordan and Israel has both an Interest to stop palestinian militant groups of all kind, and to back off Iran and Iraq influences in these teretories.

What do you think about this option?
Will never happen. Jordan is a very poor and weak country, with the Hashemite monarchy hanging by a thread. King Hussein will never be willing to rule the Palestinians, because he knows that he will have another Black September on his hands soon enough. (When the Palestinians led by Arafat tried to assasinate Hussein Senior and overthrow the Jordanian government, resulting in Jordan's slaughter of thousands of Palestinian terrorists and expelling the PLO.)

But the bigger question is whether Israel should allow the Palestinians to succeed in overthrowing Jordan's government, and then transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan, which is already a Palestinian state for all intents and purposes.

That may be a much better solution, because the Jordan River is a defensible natural border and the Palestinian terrorists could be more effectively be kept out of Israel and away from their victims.

[gev]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

Will never happen. Jordan is a very poor and weak country, with the Hashemite monarchy hanging by a thread. King Hussein will never be willing to rule the Palestinians, because he knows that he will have another Black September on his hands soon enough. (When the Palestinians led by Arafat tried to assisinate Hussein Senior and overthrow the Jordanian government, resulting in Jordan's slaughter of thousands of Palestinian terrorists and expelling the PLO.)


I think there can be a creative solution for this, some sort of an autonomy, when the palestinian ruler is reporting to Jordan, Jordan will be really in control. You see, I think that the palestinians will have to compromise with Jordan because they know that once Jordan has the teretories:
a. The world wouldnt care about it.
b. The Arab world would be divided in their opinions and there will be no public support to any fight.

Ofcourse the main thing that should be done to make it work is transferring Arafat to Gaza.


But the bigger question is whether Israel should allow the Palestinians to succeed in overthrowing Jordan's government, and then transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan, which is already a Palestinian state for all intents and purposes.


I think that would a most devastating move done by Israel:
1. Jordan is the most moderate State among Arab countries (and Some European Countries), why lose them?
2. The Israeli army Surrounds the West bank and monitor the borders, there are attempts, on a daily basis to cross the Jordanian border to the west bank, by Weapon smugllers and terrorists, some but not all are stopped . many Stopped with the help of the Jordanians.

after Transfering the palestinians to jordan and forming a palestinian state there, do you think it will end the claims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Do you think that Al-Qayeda, Iran and the Iraqies will be prepared to let go?
Do you really want a palestinian state that it's border we cant monitor? Jordan borders with Iraq,Syria and Saudi Arabia all not exactly Israel lovers and all accomodate many Terror groups. What will heapen is that the Palestinian state will become the center of terrorism, nobody will be able to stop them from gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, preparing for Dooms day.

in my opinion, when a palestinian state is formed in Jordan, you should start the countdown for Israel's end.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by gev
I think that would a most devastating move done by Israel:
1. Jordan is the most moderate State among Arab countries (and Some European Countries), why lose them?
2. The Israeli army Surrounds the West bank and monitor the borders, there are attempts, on a daily basis to cross the Jordanian border to the west bank, by Weapon smugllers and terrorists, some but not all are stopped . many Stopped with the help of the Jordanians.
1. True, Jordan is considered moderate in comparison with Iraq or Iran, but their government is so weak and so irrlevant even in the eyes of the other Arabs states, that they are an almost worthless ally for Israel. For example, there is still open anti-Semitism in Jordan and there is still an economic boycott against Israel, and there is still no Jordanian ambassador in Israel, which contradicts the peace agreement. The most they contribute is a psychological boost for Israelis, but they simply do not have the influence among their fellow Arabs to have any real impact.

2. Yes, the relatively open border with Jordan is a problem, and therefore should simply be closed completely until there is an end to Palestinian terrorism. I am not sure why Israel keeps the border open to mainly benefit the social agenda of Palestinians visiting their families, when there is such a high security risk. The border with Syria is an example of how to effectively close off a border with an enemy state.

after Transfering the palestinians to jordan and forming a palestinian state there, do you think it will end the claims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Do you think that Al-Qayeda, Iran and the Iraqies will be prepared to let go?...What will heapen is that the Palestinian state will become the center of terrorism, nobody will be able to stop them from gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, preparing for Dooms day.
No, there is no scenario at all that will stop the Arab and Islamic terrorists from trying to commit genocide against Israelis. It doesn't matter if the Palestinians would get their own state or not. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, Iran and Iraq will not stop their massacres of Jews.

As for massing weapons of mass desrtuction on Israel's border, this is already happening. Syria has plenty of those weapons aimed at Israel, and Hizbullah has thousands of mid-range missiles aimed at every city in the Northern half of Israel. At the same time, the Palestinians have attempted to smuggle in 50 tons of heavy weaponry to use against Israel.

Since this is already the case, and all your doomsday scenarios are already happening, at least transferring the Palestinian enemy out of the heart of Israel would be a wise move. Jordan would be a reasonable place for the Palestinians to be transferred.

[Mediocrates]

Because of delays in deployment of the Arrow anti missile system the northern third of Israel is already under the range of deployed and soon to be deployed Syrian missiles.

[kauffner]

NewsGuy: Take your best friend in the region and knock him off because he is weak -- is this eugenics or foreign policy? What Arab would ever trust Israel again? Maybe you think peace is impossible so that is irrelevant. But Arafat, Hamas and company are just small time gangsters. You got to keep your eye on the big boys -- Iraq, Iran, etc. What ended the first Intifada? It wasn't ended by blowing away moderate Arabs, but by the U.S. defeat of Iraq. That's what going to happened again. After that, there will be a round of peacemaking and King Abdullah won't be looking so weak.

[gev]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

but they (Jordan) simply do not have the influence among their fellow Arabs to have any real impact.


yep, but instead of replacing it with a very dangerous country, we must support them and incourage them, if they are weak - make them strong (with the help of the US ofcourse).



As for massing weapons of mass desrtuction on Israel's border, this is already happening. Syria has plenty of those weapons aimed at Israel, and Hizbullah has thousands of mid-range missiles aimed at every city in the Northern half of Israel. At the same time, the Palestinians have attempted to smuggle in 50 tons of heavy weaponry to use against Israel.

Since this is already the case, and all your doomsday scenarios are already happening, at least transferring the Palestinian enemy out of the heart of Israel would be a wise move. Jordan would be a reasonable place for the Palestinians to be transferred.

Well, I think Syria, Iraq and Iran should be delt with, but they can also be "persuaded" that their bigger interest is not making these weapons.

The palestinians are the ones with the biggest interest to have these weapons, what I'm saying is maybe the border is a little harder to protect (but possible) but Israel can sarround the teretory and monitor ALL it's borders. when you take this large group of people that want to kill as much Israelies as possible and put them out of their 'virtual cage' Israel has created, and put them near Iraq and Syria and Saudi Arabia, you actually give them a large boost, and making the problem a lot worse.

the 50 tons of weapons obtained by Israel, is actually a good example to my argument, who will be there to stop the massive flow of weapons from Iraq and Syria and Saudi-Arabia to the former Jordan?

[elke]

What do you guys think of the new King Abdullah of Jordan? He has been making rounds on US talk shows, and has made quite an impression on me, personally. Do you think he "don't get no respect" because he is young, or doesn't have enough oil, or what? He sounds like a normal person on the shows...

[ibrodsky]

Elke,

He is obviously very Western in outlook. But as others have said, he is weak and isolated.

I had an unexpected opportunity to engage a Jordanian in an online chat... This guy identified himself as a Palestinian and dismissed King Abdullah as "young and naive."

What I would really like to know is how much support does Abdullah have in his own country, and how reliable is that support? Could Abdullah's forces win a civil war?

[Mediocrates]

The Arab press occasionally dismisses him as the baby king just as they dismiss Asaad as the baby president. In the West I doubt most people other than the most hardcore even know who he is.

[elke]

Thanks, guys. Unfortunate though...

[takeo]

the Jordan monarchy is a dictatorship as in Syria, Iraq or SA.
the feelings of the majority of the population of Jordan I think is that they are living under a "treatorous regime", the disagreement is even bigger than in SA because the majority of Jordans remain poor.
let's not forget that the majority of Jordans are Palestinians, who never forgot their origin, regularly there are demonstrations which are most of the time oppressed by the army; millions more of palestinians would kill the regime for sure. (of course i'm not going to respond to the ethical consequence of newsguy's proposal for massive etnic cleansing, which would be a crime more identical to the holocaust than to the Palestinian suicide-bombers)
There didn't came an end to the first intifadeh because iraq was defeated (as you know Syria was one of the allies of the US at that time...) but because the israeli government was willing to compromise and start negociations, this will most probably mean the end of the second intifadeh as well.
Even if Syria, SA, Iran, etc. "are dealth with" (which is impossible for the US alone, and nobody will cooperate) the palestinians will not stop their intifadeh, most of their weapons are "home-made" (literally in many cases) and the determination to get rid of the israeli oppression will be the same as well. Even is Arafat get killed the groups you mentioned will not stop their war, and most probably the moderate ones will become more radical (they already became more radical after the destruction of the PA)

[takeo]

"Nobody talks about praising Israel, but it seems you haven't seen the televised brodcast of the palestinian national TV, I cant say I am a constant viewer, but the Israeli media brings from time to time the incitments and the calls for violence from there.
but why go that far? Arafat called for a million matyrs (Shahid) to come to Jerusalem, we all know what that word presents, now you think he ment go pray, maybe? "

I indeed haven't seen it, what you saw was an israeli selection of palestinian broadcast for propaganda purposes, not the whole palestinian television-program.
but perhaps yes it could be true palesinian television is calling upon palestinians to fight israel (altough i don't know if that is really so, maybe what you call agitation is just a little biased view of the israeli actions, as the israeli television is very biased as well), after all people defending their towns and cities against israeli incursions are no criminals but it is their duty(after all there is military propaganda on israeli television as well), but i can't imagine there is propaganda for the palestinians to become suicide-bombers on palestinian television.
about the martyrs, that wasn't a call for suicide-bombers (which arafat condamned regularly, both to the international community as to his own), martyrs is used in many ways and can have many meanings.





"I have two things to say about that:
1. There are many Arabs around the world that expressed their wish to be a martyr by being a suicide bomber: Saddam hussien showed his suicide bomber legion (or whatever), in Protests in Arab Countries and European countries. Are they under Israeli Occupation? the fact is that the suicide bomber is the way they fight, they chose this way because they know it hurts the most, they dont care who they bomb, he could be an Israeli-Arab and a Gush-Shalom activist - thats not something that can be caused by any occupation, but by brain-wash. This is not some act by desperate men, it is a well funded, well organized operation. "

actually the suffering in Palestine is inciting many people to hate israel, as well as 11/9 incited many americans to hate al-quaida, even if they didn't suffer personally. is this purely the result of propaganda? i don't think so.
yes, the mordid consequence of this tactic is that it is mostly indiscriminate, and that's why i condamn it. However those people would not offer their lifes just for something they have been incited against by propaganda, some small minority of extremists would, but not the 100's of palestinians which are in most cases common people (since 1 year i mean, more or less the period Sharon came to power, when suicide-bombing was no longer exclusively the method of hamas or Jihad extremists), no die-hard extremists. The people who do such actions see israel as evil, and think the "collateral damage" is regrettable but necessary. They think as Americans and israeli who also don't care for civilian casualties, a wrong logic according to me.


"2. I havent heard any Jew expressing his wish to blow himself up near Germans after the holocoust, or wanting to blow himself up near palestinians. "

no, because Jews nor French are living in such bad conditions and years of misery that they would be desperate enough to do such actions. however some extremists do risk their life to carry out assasinations, as the one who killed Rabin or Goldstein for example.

"There will always be a reason, when the occupation ends there will be other reasons, in a peace process there are compromises so we can't have everyone happy. especially Terror groups like Hamas, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad and others, they will continue to operate with their activists, using Iran ,Syria and Iraq support. when there is no one to stop them, they will grow. Thats why Israel would a palestinian leader that can and will stop these terror activities, and uuntil then It is bound to fight against these groups in order to assure it's safety. "

There isn't always a reason, look at northern ireland, some extremists will continue but the big majority will seek peace in this new better conditions. a change of leader is not necessary, israel had peace in the 90's (on the exception of some hamas-terrorism) so arafat is capable of securing peace. an israeli change of policy more than ever. i'm absolutely sure tanzim will stop their aggressions against israel the moment a peace-deal is reached. they started their activities only after israel started to attack the pa and killed 100's of stone-trowing Palestinians.

"All this said, I do agree that many palestinians who support armed attacks against Israelies will stop supporting it, once the occupation is over, but as I said it is not enough, because there will be many who will still support it. That's why the way to go, in my opinion, is some uniliteral steps: dismantle isolated settlements and fortify and create a border in the West bank. I dont think these steps will reduce the support for armed attacks against all Israelis but I dont think it will rise either. and it will be alot harder for palestinians to attack. "

This steps however would not secure israel (no single border is 100% safe as we saw in the past) because without negociations the Palestinians will do nothing to stop terrorism. it would probably not become worse, but certainly not better either. i think a negociated stable solution as with Egypt is much more preferable than a situation as near the border with libanon.


"kauffner takeo: The anthrax attacks must have taken months or years to prepare. A batch of letters were sent out immediately after the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, I assume as protest against the bombing. Who knew months in advance that the U.S. would attack Afghanistan? Only Al Qaeda. Where would Al Qaeda get anthrax? Probably not the CIA or the FBI. Surely Bin Laden would have disassociated himself from the letters if he thought the U.S. government was behind them. "

OK, this could be a theory, but than again it is nothing but wild speculation. I think al quaida did not dissociate itself from the letter because they see it as an honour to conduct such actions. However the reason those letters were indeed well coordinated is another possible indication for CIA/FBI involvement (which is, i agree as well, another wild speculation, but not less probable than the al-quaida theory). The US-government would love to have any terrorist link to Iraq, which would make it much easier to attack iraq.





"So the Middle East was all goodness and light until Zionism came and spoiled everything? There is plenty of the documentation to show that the hated of Jews by Palestinian Arabs pre-dates Zionism. A dispatch by a British consul in 1850 discusses the persecution of Jews in Hebron and states that the "Austrian Jewish Agent [is] frequently beaten in the streets there." Of course, Muslims weren't out to exterminate Jews in those days, only to constantly remind them of their inferior status. See http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/nationalism.html "

not a real neutral source.
i have some others:

"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute."

"[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the 'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

http://www.cactus48.com/earlyhistory.html

[Vic]

[So much for the fairytale of a Jewish paradise in the Arab countries destroyed by the creation of Israel - since someone was so kind as to scan the text and put it in another internet forum]



Islam generally, and the Ottoman Empire in particular, treated the Jews in its midst as second-class citizens. During the Islamic High Middle Ages, c. A.D. 850-1250, Judaism and the Jews had flourished, and would later designate the period a "golden era" of Jewish history. Jews figured prominently in politics, finance, and the arts and sciences in a number of Islamic kingdoms and empires; one or two served as chamberlains and ministers to kings and princes. Moses Maimonides, a physician to a sultan, emerged as one of the major philosophers of the Middle Ages. But thereafter the condition of the Jews in the Islamic world deteriorated, along with the general stagnation of that world; throughout they suffered discrimination, humiliation, and a sense of insecurity. Occasionally they were subjected to persecution and violence.

One distinguished Israeli historian, David Vital, has written pithily of "the unrectifiably inferior role allotted the Jews in the Muslim cosmology." Islam - much like Christianity and Judaism - has traditionally divided the world into "us" and "them," the true believers (Dar al Islam, the "house of Islam") and the infidels (Dar al Harb, the "house of war," those who should or could be put to the sword). The principle of equality - between believer and nonbeliever as between man and woman - is alien to Islam, and the Islamic world, normally in conflict with Dar al Harb in one region or another, has traditionally exhibited a deep xenophobia.

...

Muhammad's relations with the Jews, and subsequent Koranic attitudes, were eventually embodied in the treaty of submission to Muslim rule, or writ of protection, known as the dhimma, or Pact of 'Umar, extended by Muhammad's successor, the second caliph, 'Umar 'ibn al-Khattab (634-44). The dhimma governed Muslim behavior toward both Jews and Christians, the other "People of the Book," in Muslim parlance. The dhimmi, the subject Jewish or Christian (and later Zoroastrian Persian) communities, were forced to pay a poll tax, the jizya, plus the kharaj, a special tax imposed by the Muslim conquerors on nonbelievers whose lands they had confiscated. By dint of this tax, the dhimmi were allowed to continue to live on and cultivate these lands under Muslim protection, though an apparently later insertion allowed Muslim rulers to tear up the agreement at will and expel the "protected" communities. On this basis 'Umar expelled all the remaining Jews of the Hejaz, the area of western Arabia around Mecca.

The dhimmi were forbidden to strike a Muslim, carry arms, ride horses, build new houses of worship or repair old ones, and they had to wear distinctive clothing. "Contemptuous tolerance," in the phrase of historian Elie Kedourie, came to be the attitude adopted by Muslim states toward their Jewish communities. This stance was generally mixed with a measure of hostility, especially in times of political crisis. Tolerance was then superseded by intolerance, which occasionally erupted into violence. Throughout, Muslims treated the dhimmi, and perhaps especially the Jews, as impure.

...

Some of the restrictions to which the dhimmi were subjected no doubt originated in real considerations of security. But they came to be codified in Islamic law, and were later invoked and implemented without reference to changing realities. Jews were forbidden to bear arms; were permitted to ride asses only, not camels or horses, and only sidesaddle rather than astride; and were obliged to wear distinctive garb. Other restrictions had nothing to do with security and everything to do with religious and economic discrimination, and Jewish poverty in most of the Ottoman lands in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries appears to have been, in some measure at least, the result of discriminatory practices.

Mass violence against Jews, akin to the pogroms in Westem Europe in the late Middle Ages and in Eastern Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was rare in the Muslim world. But it did occur, often when a Jew who had risen to a senior government position fell from grace, died, or excited the hostility of envious Muslims. In 1066 nearly three thousand Jews were massacred in Granada, Spain. In Fez, Morocco, some six thousand Jews were murdered in 1033, and massacres took place again in 1276 and 1465. There were massacres in Tetuán in Morocco in 1790; in Mashhad and Barfurush in Persia in 1839 and 1867, respectively; and in Baghdad in 1828. Tbe Jewish quarter of Fez was almost destroyed in 1912 by a Muslim mob; and pro-Nazi mobs slaughtered dozens of Jews in Baghdad in 1941. Repeatedly, in various parts of the Islamic world, Jewish communities - contrary to the provisions of the dhimma-were given the choice of conversion or death. Usually, though not always, the incidents of mass violence occurred in the vulnerable extremities of the Muslim empire rather than at its more self-confident core. But the underlying attitude, that Jews were infidels and opponents of Islam, and necessarily inferior in the eyes of God, prevailed throughout Muslim lands down the ages.

Maimonides, writing in the twelfth century, lamented: "God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us.... None has matched [them] in debasing and humiliating us…" But generally the Jews' lot was not a matter of violence; rather, it was one of petty mortification and harassment, coupled with a general sense of insecurity.

At least initially, Jews may have been concentrated in the late Middle Ages in urban mellahs (ghettos) for their own protection, but this segregation was certainly also a sign of their isolation and marginality. Certainly the mellahs established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were founded with the intent of ostracism rather than protection. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Jews of Ottoman Islam prospered in comparison with their coreligionists in Western Europe. But during the following centuries the condition of the Jews grew increasingly debased and precarious as the empire grew progressively weaker and, as a result, less tolerant, prey to the European powers baying at its heels. A Western traveler spoke of the Jews as "the ... most degraded of the turkish non-believer communities ... their pusillanimity is so excessive, that they will flee before the uplifted hand of a child ... a ster- ling proof of the effects of oppression."

One measure and symbol of Jewish degradation was the common phenomenon - amounting in certain places, such as Yemen and Morocco, to a local custom - of stone-throwing at Jews by Muslim children." A nineteenth-century Western traveler wrote: "I have seen a little fellow of six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones at a Jew, and one little urchin would, with the greatest coolness, waddle up to the man and literally spit upon his Jewish gabardine. To all this the Jew is obliged to submit, it would he more than his life was worth to offer to strike a Mahommedan."

[kauffner]

takeo: The first Intifada began to wane at the time of the Gulf War in 1991 and clearly ended in 1992, well before the Oslo agreement was signed in 1993.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intifada.html

[Vic]

There was a spate of blood-libel incidents against the Jews during the last decades of the empire. The most famous occurred in Damascus in 1840: A Capuchin monk from Sardinia disappeared, along with his Muslim servant. The Christian community in the city, egged on by the French consul, Count Ratti-Menton, accused the Jews of killing the monk and using his blood for ritual purposes. The governor, Sharif Pasha, rounded up seven Jewish eiders and had them tortured; two died and one converted to Islam to save himself. Sixty-three children were imprisoned, and several homes were destroyed as the authorities searched for the missing bodies. Six months passed before British government pressure persuaded the authorities, meaning the nominally Ottoman governor of Egypt, Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, who was semi-independent of Constantinople, to release the remaining prisoners. Soon afterward Constantinople regained full control of Syria and Palestine (though not of Egypt), and the Sublime Porte issued an edict reaffirming its protection of the Jews and denouncing the blood libel. But such accusations continued to plague the empire for decades.

There was certainly an increase in Christian anti-Semitism - originating with European diplomats, traders, and clerics - in the empire during the second half of the nineteenth century. As it spread among the Christian Arabs, it also irradiated some of the Muslims among whom they lived. It was not just a matter of ideology; as the Jews, like their Christian dhimmi compatriots, were gradually emancipated, they became, or were feared as, competitors with the Christian merchants and professionals. European-style anti-Semitism penetrated the Levant. Anti-Semitic literature, which flourished in France against the backdrop of the Dreyfus affair, soon appeared in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt in Arabic translations. An Arabic edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, was published in Cairo in 1927.

However, despite continuing discrimination and occasional axis of violence, both by state bureaucracies and by Muslim mobs and individuals, the nineteenth century witnessed a gradual change for the better in the Jews' status. Both the empire and the Muslim states on its peripheries were subject to emancipatory and egalitarian winds blowing in from Europe.

The penetration of Western influence into Ottoman lands also took a more direct route. British, Prussian, and French consuls were posted in Jerusalem in I839, 1842, and 1843, respectively. Increasingly the powers took the empire's Christians and subsequently many of its Jews under their wing. Many Jews held European passports. In a series of bilateral treaties with the Sublime Porte, known as the "Capitulations," the European powers established extraterritorial rights within the Empire, especially in Palestine. For example, visiting or resident European nationals who committed crimes could not be detained or tried by the Ottoman authorities without the express permission of their country's consul, which was almost never forthcoming.

A formal change in the status of the dhimmi followed shortly. In February 1856 the Sublime Porte promulgated the reformist firman (edict), the Khatt-i Humayun, which declared all Ottoman subjects equal, regardless of religion, and repealed all restrictions. Almost two decades earlier, in 1839, another firman (the Khatt-i Sherif) had echoed the egalitarianism of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man - but had gone almost completely unimplemented in the various provinces, largely because of local Muslim opposition. Similar opposition, especially among Christians regarding the emancipation of the Jews, was to greet the 1856 firman, but this time the position of the dhimmi began to improve substantially, at least in terms of the law and government permits.

In practice, however, the dhimmi remained second-class citizens of the empire until its collapse in World War I. As part of the reaction to growing European influence, the Ottoman authorities - in an effort at "Islamization" - transferred tens of thousands of Muslims from the empire's northern and Balkan peripheries (Bukhara, the Caucasus, Albania, and Bosnia) to its Levantine core, including Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. This increased the Muslim proportion of the population and, perhaps, intensified Islamic consciousness as well. The history and tradition of Muslim attitudes and behavior toward the Jews was to affect profoundly the unfolding of Turkish-Zionist and Arab-Zionist relations in Palestine. The view of the Jews as objects, unassertive and subservient, was to underlie to some degree both the initial weak, irresolute Ottoman and Arab responses to the gradual Zionist influx into Palestine - Why bother, the Jews could achieve nothing anyway! - and the eventual aggressive reactions, including vandalism and murder - the Jews were accursed of God and meant only harm; their lives and property were therefore forfeit. And the traditional view of the Jews as inconsequential weaklings was for decades thereafter to stoke the fires of resentment and humiliation. In the course of the twentieth century the Arabs of the Levant were repeatedly to be humbled by the Jews, and none more so than the Palestinians, ultimately transformed into a weak minority in their own land. Such slights the Muslim world found difficult to countenance; such a situation could not be allowed to endure.

...

Benny Morris: Righteous Victims, 2001, pp. 8-13

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by kauffner
NewsGuy: Take your best friend in the region and knock him off because he is weak -- is this eugenics or foreign policy? Well, I, for one, would not weep if the Jordanian monarchy is overthrown.

For all the good intentions of the King Junior and Senior, the Hashemite kingdom is pretty much worthless as an ally for Israel.

Even at the absolute height of the Jordanian goodwill, which was just in the last few weeks, when they supposedly pressed Arafat to end terrorism, we can see that even this was worthless.

In recognition of the Hashemite kings good intentions, I think that Israel should allow him to have a nice house in Ramot, but the area East of the Jordan river would be ideal as the only place for the Palestinians.

Nonetheless, I recognize that this most excellent scenario of transferring the Palestinians into Jordan, is not likely to happen, so other arrangements need to be made for a resolution.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
What I would really like to know is how much support does Abdullah have in his own country, and how reliable is that support? Could Abdullah's forces win a civil war? IMO, he is hanging by a thread and could not withstand a full-force Palestinian grassroots revolt. At least not without killing perhaps 10s of thousands of Palestinian civilians, which he will not do.

[takeo]

all right, all this is well known and true, yet a bit one-sided and certainly Jews were better off than in most parts of Europe, at least untill early 19th century, and better than in Eastern Europe untill the October revolution.

"Mass violence against Jews, akin to the pogroms in Westem Europe in the late Middle Ages and in Eastern Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was rare in the Muslim world. But it did occur, often when a Jew who had risen to a senior government position fell from grace, died, or excited the hostility of envious Muslims. "

so this meant that Jews COULD rise to a senior position, which was very unlikely in Europe (and the US) untill the 18th century and Eastern europe untill the 20th century.

by the way the incident in Damask was incited by Christians, nor Muslims.
And ottomans policy may have been biased against Christians and muslims(this is the 19th century you know!!), still Ottomans protected the property of zionists.


"At least not without killing perhaps 10s of thousands of Palestinian civilians, which he will not do."

he should take sharon as his example of how to deal properly with palestinians, this weak bastard!!!

With jordan as the new palestine and all palestinians expulsed from their original homeland, your "excellent scenario ", I can garantee you that jordan in that case will be a base of terrorism against israel which would make Jenin or gaza look like disneyland for Israel.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
all right, all this is well known and true, yet a bit one-sided and certainly Jews were better off than in most parts of Europe, The classic argument of Arab apologists is that in Europe Jews were violently robbed, raped, pillaged and massacred, while in Muslim countries Jews were much better off just being selectivley robbed, raped, discriminated against, humiliated and only smaller numbers of Jews murdered. For Arab apologists, this shows Muslim compassion.

I would challenge Muslims to consent to being treated by the world in the same way they treated their Jewish citizens historically.

With jordan as the new palestine and all palestinians expulsed from their original homeland, your "excellent scenario ", I can garantee you that jordan in that case will be a base of terrorism against israel which would make Jenin or gaza look like disneyland for IsraelWhy? What exactly would the Palestinians do that is not already being done?

Of course it would be a most excellent scenario if Palestinians would be forced back to their true homeland where they came from before becoming squatters in the Jewish homeland.

Then, the Palestinians would be free from Israeli rule and have their own country.

Too bad this is not likely to happen. Really.

[takeo]

"Of course it would be a most excellent scenario if Palestinians would be forced back to their true homeland where they came from before becoming squatters in the Jewish homeland. "

again, you show that security is not important for Sharon apologists, but your problem with a Palestinian state is ideological, as you consider the historical palestine to be the Heimat for Jews and for jews only, purified of non-Jewish elements (who used to live there for many 100's of years, but who cares?).

For you it would be a most excellant scenario, but millions of Palestinians would not give up their land so easily.
Jordan as a palestinian state with huge sympathy from other Arab countries and the whole world after the etnic cleansing you proposed, would build-up a n impressive weapons-arsenal, and attack israel in all possible ways, than israel would occupy Jordan, where the struggle would continue but on a larger scale and at a larger cost (both military, economically, and diplomatically) for israel. No single palestinian would talk with israel and they wouldn't mind so much jordan being destructed, after all it's not their land. of course iraq and Syria would interfeare in the war in Jordan and so israel would have to occupy iraq and syria as well (no more us-friendship since the massive etnic cleansing) , than iran and egypt, than pakistan, etc. etc. untill nothing is left of israel.
And than of course you could all blame it on "muslim anti-semitism"

"I would challenge Muslims to consent to being treated by the world in the same way they treated their Jewish citizens historically"

untill the 18th century in many countries all people of a different religion were persecuted, of course the Jews were the victim of this, in both the islamic and christian world. But it was certainly worse in many Christian countries than in the Ottoman empire(Jews and Christians enjoyed some privileges), if not those 100's of 1000's of sephardic Jews from Spain (after it became Christian again) wouldn't have immigrated to the Balcans.

[sharonbn]

Some historical facts to contribute to the discussion:

The London agreement:

On April 11th, 1987, Shimon Peres (then Foreign Minister in the national unity government) and King Hussein signed the secret "London Agreement". This was the realization of the Labor party’s preferred solution to the Palestinian problem and was dubbed as the “Jordanian option”. The main theme of the agreement was that Israel is to hand over WB to Jordanian rule. In return, peace and normal relationship will be established between the two states.

Peres failed to pass the agreement in the Knesset, mainly because PM Shamir opposed it and ultimately blocked the progress.

Its worth mentioning that until that time, Jordan maintained official offices and governmental representation in WB. Jordanian currency was legal tender in WB. Jordan was responsible for the relative peace that was maintained in WB after 67.
After the failure of the London agreement, Hussein closed all his official offices and effectively stopped pursuing annexation of WB to Jordan. Consequently he stopped being viewed as the representative of the Palestinian people.

8 months later, on December 1987, the first Intifada broke.

[elke]

no, because Jews nor French are living in such bad conditions and years of misery that they would be desperate enough to do such actions.

You are kidding about the Jews' lives, right? Either that, or your parents haven't told you enough about what the Jews' lives were like in Russia, let alone during the WWII in Europe. They haven't told you about the pogroms, the "5th column", the abysmal poverty of most of them, the forced military service, etc.,etc.

however some extremists do risk their life to carry out assasinations, as the one who killed Rabin or Goldstein for example.

??? You still don't understand the difference between "risking one's life" and suicide murder?

[takeo]

yea, ok i understand the difference but it's practically the same.

I know more than enough and heard enough stories from my parents about all the misery the Jewish people had to endure during history, especially in Ukrain and Russia, yet since the 50's this is no longer the case, not in Russia, not in France and not in the US. So they have no longer a reason for carrying out such actions.

[takeo]

i think the first intifadeh erupted because there was no longer any perspective of an end of occupation trough negociation or diplomatic pressure on israel.
jordan never effectively controlled the WB-population after 1967

[Vic]

Originally posted by takeo
I know more than enough and heard enough stories from my parents about all the misery the Jewish people had to endure during history, especially in Ukrain and Russia, yet since the 50's this is no longer the case, not in Russia, ...
You forgot to mention Ukraine, especially its western part in the post-Soviet period. Just why, I wonder?

[Mediocrates]

"so this meant that Jews COULD rise to a senior position, which was very unlikely in Europe (and the US) untill the 18th century and Eastern europe untill the 20th century. "



If you want to base your civilization on being a "Court Jew" I guess that might be the root of your inferiority complex.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
IMO, he is hanging by a thread and could not withstand a full-force Palestinian grassroots revolt. At least not without killing perhaps 10s of thousands of Palestinian civilians, which he will not do.


Not at all. The Jordanians have proven over and over their utter disregard for restraint in dealing with their own Palestinian underclass. Those they can't keep on the reservation they simply chase after with tanks. Their civil war of 1970-1 was brutal repression of the Palestinians and those who they couldn't keep squashed in the mud of their own camps they simply killed or drove over the river to the WB.

Both Gaza and WB are the perfect static solutions for Egypt and Jordan respectively. They don't want their own Palestinians and if they have to give up some land to push them out of their own country, I guess that's an acceptable price to pay. This is how repatriation will be handled by all the Arab countries....as soon as there is an independent Palistan all the other Arab countries will expel their own. Another 4 million murderers, I mean, militants, I mean activists, I mean refugees, I mean peaceful peaceloving people of peace, I mean angels, I mean the most wonderful people made in God image, I mean gods themselves......living in 'occupied' Palestine.

[chocolady]

I suggested it a while back. But, Israel should not stop there - don't forget to return Gaza to Egypt!

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
yea, ok i understand the difference but it's practically the same.

mmmm...Come again? If it's different, it can't be the same - by definition :)

I know more than enough and heard enough stories from my parents about all the misery the Jewish people had to endure during history, especially in Ukrain and Russia, yet since the 50's this is no longer the case, not in Russia, not in France and not in the US. So they have no longer a reason for carrying out such actions.

I can assure you that I was not even born in the '50's (I may seem old to you, but as my kids tell me, I am "medium" :) ). There was plenty of garbage going right through the '70's that I can vouch for; and if ALL our friends and my Grandfather are to be believed (which I do), is still going on in the 2000's.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Not at all. The Jordanians have proven over and over their utter disregard for restraint in dealing with their own Palestinian underclass.
True. The Jordanians and all other Arab countries, for that matter, know very well how to deal with their Palestinian problem.

But I still highly doubt that the current Jordanian leadership will be willing to do what is necessary in the event of an all-out Palestinian attempt to overthrow the kingdom. Who knows. I could be surprised.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
again, you show that security is not important for Sharon apologists, but your problem with a Palestinian state is ideological, as you consider the historical palestine to be the Heimat for Jews and for jews only, purified of non-Jewish elements (who used to live there for many 100's of years, but who cares?).
Right, I consider Israel to be the Jewish homeland and the Palestinians to be squatters and nothing more, so far as they have no right, IMO, to live in Israel.

They do, however, have every right to go back to the Arabian desert where they originated and live there in freedom.

For you it would be a most excellant scenario, but millions of Palestinians would not give up their land so easily.
Well, for me and for millions of Israeli it would be an excellent scenario. And for the Palestinians, too, for that matter, because again, they would be entitiled to live freely, not under occupation.

Jordan as a palestinian state with huge sympathy from other Arab countries and the whole world after the etnic cleansing you proposed, would build-up a n impressive weapons-arsenal, and attack israel in all possible ways...

I don't know why you bother to bring up those threats as if they might happen some time in the future. In reality, all that is already happening right now, so it's not like the situation will get any worse. At least in my scenario, Israel would have the benefit of ridding itself of the Palestinian problem, and the Palestinians themselves will be able to live independently.


untill the 18th century in many countries all people of a different religion were persecuted, of course the Jews were the victim of this, in both the islamic and christian world.
Right, so the trip down memory lane of the "good old days" for Jews under Muslim rule, is completely false. That is my point.

[Gatorade]

a different perspective from an article by By Michale Matza from Knight Ridder Newspapers.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2002/05/22/news/front/3312156.htm

Arafat has run the Palestinian territories virtually unchallenged since Israel permitted his return from exile eight years ago. Between 1967 and 1994, Israel administered the territories. In the beginning of Israeli rule, life for the common Palestinian wasn't so bad. Even while opposing the occupation, residents found work in Israel and their incomes rose. Corruption and inefficiency in the Palestinian Authority, along with Israeli foot-dragging toward final peace negotiations, reversed the trend.

The point being that maybe the Palestinians under Israelis rule wasn't that bad. Maybe the average Palestinian in the West Bank was better off under Israeli rule than the current Palestinian rule. Maybe their own goverment is a bigger problem for them than Israel is now.

Still, I don't think the solution is for Israel to annex the West Bank and make the Palestinians citizens of Israel, nor do I agree with Newsguy about transfering the population of Palestinians out of the West Bank.

Safe secure borders for Israel is the solution and that won't requre all of the West Bank to be annexed into Israel.

[gev]

Originally posted by takeo
"I indeed haven't seen it, what you saw was an israeli selection of palestinian broadcast for propaganda purposes, not the whole palestinian television-program.
but perhaps yes it could be true palesinian television is calling upon palestinians to fight israel (altough i don't know if that is really so, maybe what you call agitation is just a little biased view of the israeli actions, as the israeli television is very biased as well)...


I know you would find this link biased, but I don't think the creators of the site would invent this:

http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/dispatch/notablequotes/Article-41.html


sadly, I dont need to go far back, today after the Petah-Tikwa terror attack which was launched by the Al-Aqsa martyrs (which is part of the Fatah organization led by Arafat, mind you) Arafat condemn the Terror attack, in the mean time there was a television program praising the Al-Aqsa martyrs as the true fighters for freedom (or whatever) this was on the official PA television.

Originally posted by takeo
"about the martyrs, that wasn't a call for suicide-bombers (which arafat condamned regularly, both to the international community as to his own), martyrs is used in many ways and can have many meanings.



a high rank Fatah-Tanzim member said in a rally today that "history will tell that Arafat knew and approved all the acts we have done in the Intifadah"
might I remind you that the Fatah-Tanzim is resposible for many vicous terror attacks.
I saw it in the Israeli TV, I'm just guessing here, but no western TV station reported it right?


I also want to direct you to this link, this is Imad Faluji speech in a refugee camp in Lebanon (Imad Faluji is a minister in the PA)

http://www.jsfp.org/Faluji.html

Takeo, I sense you base your opinions by seeing what the PA leaders say in international TV, and what Israel is saying on international TV, and the reports on international TV...
I dont understand how from that you can get so strong opinions on the subject?
When I see other conflicts in the world on Israeli TV and international TV I dont base any opinion because I know its not the whole story and it must be much more comlicated than what the international TV try to sell.



They think as Americans and israeli who also don't care for civilian casualties, a wrong logic according to me.



not true, if Israel and Israelies wouldnt care about civilian casulities the situation was much more different. the fact is that many military operations are planned in a way to cause as little casualities as possible. one famous example is Jenin refugee camp: why do you think israel chose a ground operation, ended in the death of 13 soldeirs? why not bomb from the air?


There isn't always a reason, look at northern ireland, some extremists will continue but the big majority will seek peace in this new better conditions.


when other countries has the interest of keeping this conflict going they will do it, what country has the interest of keeping the Ireland-Britian conflict going?


a change of leader is not necessary, israel had peace in the 90's (on the exception of some hamas-terrorism) so arafat is capable of securing peace.


it was a deal broken by arafat and Hamas, no major terror attacks in a row, just some here and there to remind the public you are there. Arafat left the Hamas and Islamic-Jihad to grow in it's power and infrastructure all these years, he didnt fight them.
thats what will be done when he is the ruler of the palestininan state - thats part of the reason why Israel wants a changed PA.



This steps however would not secure israel (no single border is 100% safe as we saw in the past) because without negociations the Palestinians will do nothing to stop terrorism. it would probably not become worse, but certainly not better either. i think a negociated stable solution as with Egypt is much more preferable than a situation as near the border with libanon.


we havn't saw nothing in the past, because there wasn't any good border in the past, what we did saw in the past and see now is a border that I wouldn't call half as what can be done in a matter of electronic devices and fortifications - the border between the Gaza strip and Israel - Gaza is homebase for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and still all attempts to launch a suicide attack from there fails. if a better border is set there and in the west bank, it will reduce or stop completely the suicide attacks.

and your remark about palestinians will never stop terrorism as long as there isn't any peace... well, do you think they are entitled to do so?

[gev]

NULL

[takeo]

"You forgot to mention Ukraine, especially its western part in the post-Soviet period. Just why, I wonder?"

i did mention ukrain, but in the post-Soviet period?

i don't know of any pogroms since the 90's...

well, i would have prefered to be a court-jew than to live in the Pale, wouldn't you???



"sadly, I dont need to go far back, today after the Petah-Tikwa terror attack which was launched by the Al-Aqsa martyrs (which is part of the Fatah organization led by Arafat, mind you) Arafat condemn the Terror attack, in the mean time there was a television program praising the Al-Aqsa martyrs as the true fighters for freedom (or whatever) this was on the official PA television. "

again, i have difficulty to believe that al-aqsa, which has never been prooved to be a part of Fatah, would have its own program on television. It would be very much undermining the autority of Arafat, which is not allowed in palestinian state institutions.




"a high rank Fatah-Tanzim member said in a rally today that "history will tell that Arafat knew and approved all the acts we have done in the Intifadah"
might I remind you that the Fatah-Tanzim is resposible for many vicous terror attacks.
I saw it in the Israeli TV, I'm just guessing here, but no western TV station reported it right? "

Well, if you saw it in the israeli television and no Western tv reported about it (it would be breaking news), i would be highly sceptical about the originality of this.
Fatah is not responsible by the way of attacks against civilians in israel.


"http://www.jsfp.org/Faluji.html"

this link didn't work.

"Takeo, I sense you base your opinions by seeing what the PA leaders say in international TV, and what Israel is saying on international TV, and the reports on international TV...
I dont understand how from that you can get so strong opinions on the subject?
When I see other conflicts in the world on Israeli TV and international TV I dont base any opinion because I know its not the whole story and it must be much more comlicated than what the international TV try to sell. "

actually i base my opinions as well on my travel experiences in Israel and the occupied territories and on all kinds of websites, newspapers, and scientific studies. I also have israeli and palestinian friends.
I think most people on this forum base their opinions solely on international tv, websites or newspapers.





"not true, if Israel and Israelies wouldnt care about civilian casulities the situation was much more different. the fact is that many military operations are planned in a way to cause as little casualities as possible. one famous example is Jenin refugee camp: why do you think israel chose a ground operation, ended in the death of 13 soldeirs? why not bomb from the air? "

because it was an urbanised territory, it would have killed 1000's of innocent civilians, which would have strong international and diplomatic repercussions for israel, much worse than after what happened in jenin. according to amnesty international and HRW israel DID target on purpose civilian infrastructure and people, however not on a massive scale.




"when other countries has the interest of keeping this conflict going they will do it, what country has the interest of keeping the Ireland-Britian conflict going? "

what neighbouring country is interested in keeping the conflict between palestinians and israeli going on?




"it was a deal broken by arafat and Hamas, no major terror attacks in a row, just some here and there to remind the public you are there. Arafat left the Hamas and Islamic-Jihad to grow in it's power and infrastructure all these years, he didnt fight them.
thats what will be done when he is the ruler of the palestininan state - thats part of the reason why Israel wants a changed PA. "

Arafat was condamned by Amnesty International for hard repression and unlawfull arrests of Hamas-members, remember???
arafat had never full controll of the occupied territories and his autority and police were always weak because of the limitations of ythe oslo-achievements. Yet if he could maintain relative peace in this conditions he would do for sure much better in a real state with international obligations.




"we havn't saw nothing in the past, because there wasn't any good border in the past, what we did saw in the past and see now is a border that I wouldn't call half as what can be done in a matter of electronic devices and fortifications - the border between the Gaza strip and Israel - Gaza is homebase for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and still all attempts to launch a suicide attack from there fails. if a better border is set there and in the west bank, it will reduce or stop completely the suicide attacks. "

i'm not so sure, i heard that still suicide-attackers are coming from Gaza, that's why recently israel made some incursions into Gaza.

"and your remark about palestinians will never stop terrorism as long as there isn't any peace... well, do you think they are entitled to do so? "

Yes of course if you mean actions that are legitimised by the geneva-conventions, so actions against the occupation-force, politicians and armed colonisers, NOT against civilians.




"Arafat has run the Palestinian territories virtually unchallenged since Israel permitted his return from exile eight years ago. Between 1967 and 1994, Israel administered the territories. In the beginning of Israeli rule, life for the common Palestinian wasn't so bad. Even while opposing the occupation, residents found work in Israel and their incomes rose. Corruption and inefficiency in the Palestinian Authority, along with Israeli foot-dragging toward final peace negotiations, reversed the trend. "

the palestinian economic and social situation during 1967-1994 period did certainly not improove, I would say on the contrary, and the fact that nobody starved was because of international aid. it was certainly not a "happy occupation", if not the intifadah wouldn't have started...
the only advantage for both parties was palestinians being able to be low-wage labour-forces for the israeli economy.
after the palestinian autonomy in some parts of the occupied territory things improoved, yet the many israeli blockades and expulsion of palestinians working in israel had negative effects on the economy. Of course since 2000 it's totally an empty basket.





"Safe secure borders for Israel is the solution and that won't requre all of the West Bank to be annexed into Israel. "

I think save borders are not possible without a negociated solution, and a negotiated solution won't be possible if israel is planning to keep large parts of the occupied territories.

[takeo]

"Both Gaza and WB are the perfect static solutions for Egypt and Jordan respectively. They don't want their own Palestinians and if they have to give up some land to push them out of their own country, I guess that's an acceptable price to pay. This is how repatriation will be handled by all the Arab countries....as soon as there is an independent Palistan all the other Arab countries will expel their own. Another 4 million murderers, I mean, militants, I mean activists, I mean refugees, I mean peaceful peaceloving people of peace, I mean angels, I mean the most wonderful people made in God image, I mean gods themselves......living in 'occupied' Palestine."

:mad:

this must be one of the most racist descriptions of an entire people ever since Hitler and lomplighter...
but of course you are right that a stable solution for palestine after the end of israeli occupation can not be established unless the refugee-problem is equally solved too. Which means israel sooner or later will have to negociate and compromise about this un-resolution and the etnic cleansing of 1948 as well, considering both the demographic concerns of israel and the legitimate demands of the palestinians.





"I can assure you that I was not even born in the '50's (I may seem old to you, but as my kids tell me, I am "medium" ). There was plenty of garbage going right through the '70's that I can vouch for; and if ALL our friends and my Grandfather are to be believed (which I do), is still going on in the 2000's."

what garbage do you mean(not the old stories but in YOUR life, medium, which is the best actually ;) )"? is it in any sence comparable to what the palestinians have endured and are still enduring???



True. The Jordanians and all other Arab countries, for that matter, know very well how to deal with their Palestinian problem.
But I still highly doubt that the current Jordanian leadership will be willing to do what is necessary in the event of an all-out Palestinian attempt to overthrow the kingdom. Who knows. I could be surprised."

actually with millions more of palestinians, who have since many years fought for their independance and freedom, the regime, which is even today not supported by the majority and has stability problems, would not resist i think.




"Right, I consider Israel to be the Jewish homeland and the Palestinians to be squatters and nothing more, so far as they have no right, IMO, to live in Israel.
They do, however, have every right to go back to the Arabian desert where they originated and live there in freedom. "

this is clear, you want an etnic cleansing of all of the historical palestine of its original population based on religious or etnic convictions. there is a name for such theories.
anyway, if this is your viewpoint we should stop talking about security-matters because that's not the real issue here, even with 100% security for israel you would still want to etnic cleanse the occupied territories. if this is as well the logic of the israeli government (it could be if netanyahu comes to power) than of course i would urge the palestinians to stop all calls for negociation and launch a full war against israel, WITH military support of France and many other countries i can assure you.



"Well, for me and for millions of Israeli it would be an excellent scenario. And for the Palestinians, too, for that matter, because again, they would be entitiled to live freely, not under occupation."

not under occupation but in exile. Of course in that same logic of yours it would be preferable if all israeli would immigrate to the us to live in full security... that's without any doubt what extremist palestinians want, as well as extremist israeli want the expulsion of all Palestinians.
but fortunately you're wrong that millions of israeli support your lunatic view, the polls show differently.




"I don't know why you bother to bring up those threats as if they might happen some time in the future. In reality, all that is already happening right now, so it's not like the situation will get any worse. At least in my scenario, Israel would have the benefit of ridding itself of the Palestinian problem, and the Palestinians themselves will be able to live independently. "

palestinians would of course not accept such an etnic cleansing, i'm sure you can imagine this. they would attack israel with all possible means, nobody would be calling for restraint as happening today, would have unlimited acces to all kinds of weapons (what they haven't now), israel would have lost its remaining allies, and israeli intrusions in jordan to stop terrorism would draw the whole Arab and muslim world in this war. israel can't possibly win against one billion of people...
It can be A LOT worse than today.






"Right, so the trip down memory lane of the "good old days" for Jews under Muslim rule, is completely false. That is my point. "

I never said so.
I said that Muslims are not any more anti-semitic than Christians troughout the whole history, but less.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
but fortunately you're wrong that millions of israeli support your lunatic view, the polls show differently.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that if Israelis could honestly choose to have the Arabs leave the land of Israel and go back to their desert homeland taking their terrorism and Jihad with them, I think most Israelis would love that. But, as I said before, it is an unfortunate reality that this most exce