Blah, blah, blah. The second the resistance stops there is no reason for talk, is there? That is the one and only thing the Palestinians have that the Israelis want so you can pretty much count on the resistance to continue until something is worked out. As I noted before, there is no incentive to talk peace if everything is already peaceful, so yes, your demand that the Palestinians give Israel everything it wants (i.e. surrender) as a precondition for talks is a total nonstarter. 1967-1987 & 1993-1994 has conclusively proven that the second the Palestinians stop resisting their occupation all Israeli compromise and negotiation comes to a complete halt.

“It seemed to be working before the “high crime” of a Sharon visit was used as a bulls*** excuse for Arafat’s last intifada, but the Palestinians intentionally destroyed those negotiations.”

That just proves you have no idea what you’re talking about. Israeli aggression and Palestinian resistance had been steadily increasing throughout the OPTs prior to Sharon’s raid on Haram al-Sharif. Most of us watching it at the time were predicting a new intifada for the preceding couple of years, all it needed was a spark. In 1987 that spark was a traffic accident in Gaza, in 2000 it was Sharon’s raid on Haram al-Sharif, though realistically it could have been almost anything so high had tensions risen by that time.

“If the Palestinians don’t change, the Israelis will finally have had enough and will wall off any and all access to Israel from Gaza and the West Bank. No checkpoints. Nothing. Gaza will have its border with Egypt, and the West Bank with Jordan, but no access to the Israeli economy … which will be devastating to the Palestinians.”

The Palestinians haven’t had access to the Israeli economy, except those exploitive measures meant to use the OPTs as a “captive market” since 1996, so that’s a completely empty threat. Interestingly, their campaign to bring in all the Asian workers to replace the Palestinian workers is leading to an entirely new series of threats to the “Jewish nature” of the state.

IF Israel really freed the OPTs, meaning the Palestinians had access to their resources (water, Gaza’s offshore natural gas, &c.), control of their own borders (meaning Israel leaves the Jordan Valley, ends control of the Gaza coast and border with Egypt, and so on) then you would have a real workable unilateral two-state option. Israel could do this tomorrow or could have done this and saved themselves a LOT of trouble in Gaza all along. That is the entire point, Israel has never – not once – even hinted at such a thing, which is why both your “threat” and the two-state solution are pipe dreams. If Israel were actually willing to carry out the “threat” you’ve made here, most of the actual fighting (as opposed to the larger conflict) could be effectively resolved tomorrow; but Israel will NEVER do as you suggest. They demand 100% control and this means there will be no separation and no two-state solution.

“First, ‘always has’?”

Yes, ALWAYS has from the very outset (back in the 1970’s) when Israel gave Hamas tacit support (including official licensing and permission to operate) as an Islamic counterbalance against the secular nationalist formations of the PLO. It is one of the greatest examples of “blowback” of all time (right up there with the US & Bin Laden).
UPI: “Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel”

“Uh, don’t you mean they’ve always dealt with the PLO?”

There have always been some indirect ties with the PLO, but it wasn’t really until the Madrid Talks that any official Israeli negotiators sat down with the PLO ones. Israel’s ties to Hamas are much stronger as they’ve been there from the very beginning of Hamas.

No time today to go over everything, but this one jumped out as a ridiculous statement. Surrender? Where the hell did that come from? Stop attacks, start talks. It seemed to be working before the “high crime” of a Sharon visit was used as a bulls*** excuse for Arafat’s last intifada, but the Palestinians intentionally destroyed those negotiations. Most of Arafat’s demands were already agreed to by Israel. Israel did ask for one main thing … stop killing our people. The Palestinians wouldn’t, or couldn’t, do it.

The Palestinian leadership draws its power from the continuation of conflict. What has the PLO done to build a society? How about Hamas? Hell, they tore down the greenhouses left behind in Gaza when the Israeli settlers moved out. Talk about self inflicted wounds. Arafat needed the hate of Israel to mask his own sins and keep him in power. Hamas is now doing the same thing. Look for continued exhortations for young people to martyr themselves.

In the end, I think your opinion that Israel wants continual low-grade conflict will be shown to be totally false. Israel wants security. If the Palestinians don’t change, the Israelis will finally have had enough and will wall off any and all access to Israel from Gaza and the West Bank. No checkpoints. Nothing. Gaza will have its border with Egypt, and the West Bank with Jordan, but no access to the Israeli economy … which will be devastating to the Palestinians.

LOL, what claptrap. Israel does deal with Hamas all the time and always has, though it is kept “low level” and somewhat “unofficial” and usually through mediators for larger issue discussions.

I guess that was your other truly ridiculous statement. First, “always has”? Uh, don’t you mean they’ve always dealt with the PLO? Second, just as you can’t figure out the difference between expressing sympathy and actually going to war with somebody, you can’t differentiate low level interactions and talks about the future of two states. You just seem to be an all or nothin’ kinda’ guy.

Yes, Hamas was continuing to lob home-made Qassams at Sderot AND Israel was continuing to kill Palestinians at the time of the proposed ceasefire, that is of course why there was a need for a ceasefire. If the two sides had already ceased firing at one another there would already be a ceasefire and thus no need for a new ceasefire. The whole idea of proposing a ceasefire is because there was not one already in practice. I don’t think this is too difficult to follow so I’m not exactly sure what you’re taking issue with. If there was already a ceasefire – meaning the two sides had stopped firing at one another – there wouldn’t be a reason to propose a ceasefire, would there?

“Israel refuses to deal directly with Hamas because the militant Islamic movement rejects the existence of a Jewish state in the Islamic Middle East and routinely calls for its destruction.”

LOL, what claptrap. Israel does deal with Hamas all the time and always has, though it is kept “low level” and somewhat “unofficial” and usually through mediators for larger issue discussions. Just from this week’s news: http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Palestine/220583 (see the last paragraph) And, of course, since Hamas controls the interior of Gaza and Israel controls all the borders, there is also “tactical” interaction dealing with borders and the like as well. This is only prudent as – ideological claptrap notwithstanding – no one outside of the US Congress can deny that Hamas is a legitimate player in the conflict and therefore has to be dealt with.

“To you, it says that the Israelis are baaaaaaaad people who want perpetual chaos.”

No, not perpetual chaos exactly, but perpetual low level conflict for sure. In those instances when the situation legitimately spiraled into chaos – say the first month of the Al Aqsa Intifada or March/April 2002 – Israel certainly exerted maximum effort to bring things under control. Perpetual chaos does NOT serve Israeli interests as they lose control of the situation, however low level perpetual conflict that remains firmly under Israeli control certainly does.

“And in reply to your previous post with a site that’s all about the dead children…”

If you had actually bothered to look at the website you would have noticed that it also includes ALL Israeli children that have been killed since the outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada as well. In one respect this shows balance (i.e. the killing of children is wrong, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators or victims); conversely it also graphically illustrates how incredibly disproportionate the number of murdered Palestinian children as compared to that of Israeli children.

“In amateur video of the Thursday rocket attack on the battered Israeli town of Sderot, taken from inside the school, the sound of the explosion is clearly heard…”

At no point have you seen me try to defend, justify or excuse the Qassam rocket attacks on Sderot, so I’m not sure what your point is here. The fact that Palestinians will continue to resist – even using such detestable methods as the shelling of Sderot – as long as the Israelis continue to maintain absolute control over Gaza is just a fact of life. If Israel wants Gazan resistance to end it will have to actually free Gaza, there is no other way. As noted anon, if Gaza were actually free and its people had the opportunity to actually advance their situation as opposed to just sitting there under Israeli rule, they would have lots of more important things to do than attack Israel. But as it is, they have absolutely nothing better to do.

“All the Palestinians have to do is forgo violence.”

That simply isn’t going to happen for one very simple reason, peace is the ONLY thing the Palestinians have to offer that Israel wants, so there is no chance that they’ll trade away their one bargaining chip for nothing. Israel has conclusively proven (1967-1987, 1993-1994, &c.) that whenever the Palestinians stop resisting, Israel has everything it wants and all negotiation and compromise come to a complete stop. Essentially what you are demanding is that the Palestinians give Israel everything it wants (namely passive docile Palestinians) in exchange for nothing and despite the fact that Israel has proven repeatedly that the second the Palestinians stop their resistance Israel is completely satisfied and all concessions and negation stops. Somewhat akin to the ceasefire issue above, your demand that the Palestinians simply surrender as a precondition for negotiation is a non-starter as we all know that if they do surrender then Israel has everything it wants and there is no reason to negotiate or compromise at all.

Time to face reality here. Your demand that the Palestinians simply give everything Israel wants as a precursor to further discussion is a complete nonstarter. The reason there is a need for a ceasefire is that there isn’t one; both sides are currently firing at one another. The reason there has to be sincere peace negotiations is because there is no peace. It makes no sense to discuss a ceasefire if there is already one, nor does is there any incentive to have sinceere peace negotiations if there is already peace.

“So your reply of This exact scenario has been repeated so many times it is ridiculous means you should be able to provide buckets of incidents. Where are they all? Or do you just “know” that it’s true?’”

Tell you what, since it is such an incredibly common thing, just give me a year (since 1994) and I’ll give you and example. It isn’t hard at all.

While your at it, please tell me anything substantial that the Palestinians have ever offered in a peace negotiations. Arafat saying Israel has the right to exist doesn’t count as it has no substance. Name one thing they’re willing to give up to get their own state.

All the Palestinians have to do is forgo violence. Tell me, Mr. Palestinian Apologist, just what have the Palestinian people EVER done to show that they are serious about a peaceful resolution with Israel?

And let’s revisit your reply to my request for a time that Israel attacked during a ceasefire. You failed miserably the first time, making my case very strongly, thank you very much. So your reply of This exact scenario has been repeated so many times it is ridiculous means you should be able to provide buckets of incidents. Where are they all? Or do you just “know” that it’s true?

Thanks for the article. It makes my point beautifully. Did you actually read it?

“The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the Hamas proposal was limited to stopping the rocket fire in exchange for a halt to Israeli military operations in Gaza.

…and just a few sentences later…

Despite the tentative contacts, there were more Palestinian rocket barrages Thursday. One rocket fired by militants in Gaza exploded next to an Israeli school, terrifying children. Late Thursday, Hamas said it fired three rockets at Israel, its first such claim in weeks, putting the truce talk in doubt.

So Hamas makes its advance, while continuing to shoot rockets, and what is Israel’s reply?

Israel rejected the advance, saying there was no need for a truce because if the rocket fire stopped, Israel would have no reason to attack.

And why won’t they deal with Hamas?

Israel refuses to deal directly with Hamas because the militant Islamic movement rejects the existence of a Jewish state in the Islamic Middle East and routinely calls for its destruction.

Gee. To a thinking person, that all makes sense. To you, it says that the Israelis are baaaaaaaad people who want perpetual chaos.

And in reply to your previous post with a site that’s all about the dead children…

In amateur video of the Thursday rocket attack on the battered Israeli town of Sderot, taken from inside the school, the sound of the explosion is clearly heard. Children scream and cry as a teacher tries to round them up and guide them to a safe location.

No one was hurt, but Israeli officials said about a dozen children suffered panic attacks, and one was taken to a hospital for shock.

But I guess the Palestinians are justified in trying to wipe out Jewish kids because they lost two wars that they started.

“As to Israel controlling their electricity, why don’t the Palestinians have power plants.”

Specifically, it is because this is a constituent element of Israel’s control dynamic. For example, when Israel took Gaza in 1967 its entire energy infrastructure was self-contained (that is, they produced all their own electricity). Israel deliberately and systematically eradicated this energy infrastructure, forcibly shutting down most (there were some exceptions, mostly those run by UNRWA) Palestinian energy producers and integrating Gaza into the Israeli power grid. On the positive side, this scheme meant there was more power in Gaza and a lot of places received electricity that hadn’t had it before (this was the Israeli talking point); but the flip side of this was that Gaza became 100% dependent on Israel for its electricity.

After Oslo, but before “Disengagement,” the Israeli government loosened its control, allowing Gaza one major power plant that supplies something like half of Gaza’s power but even at that Israel maintains control over it by sporadically bombing this plant and/or preventing the importation of fuel whenever they feel like inflicting some collective punishment. See, for example, just from this week’s news: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSL0654977920080106

“Maybe because their leaders, including their hero Arafat, siphoned off all the money that was meant to make their lives better and give them infrastructure? I guess Israel forced them to steal all that money, right?”

This is a different topic, but one I completely agree with you on. That Arafat & the old PLO/Fatah leadership have proven to be hopelessly corrupt and their regime a virtual kleptocracy is utterly undeniable. In fact is one of the primary reasons that the Palestinians voted in Hamas, who has a reputation for honesty and lack of corruption (as opposed to the standard Israeli myth that Hamas was voted in because they want to “kill Jews”). As far as my personal opinion is concerned, the “Palestine Authority” should be completely dissolved as it is utterly dominated by corrupt thieves (not to mention this helps lay to rest the premise that the PA constitutes some sort of “government” and therefore advances the one state proposition).

If you were hoping I would be a PLO/Fatah/Arafat defender, I’m sorry to disappoint you.

“You say the Palestinians can only react because Israel has all the control. For the last 2 decades, show me an instance when the Palestinians called a ceasefire but the Israelis escalated the violence anyway.”

You’re joking right? This exact scenario has been repeated so many times it is ridiculous. Just last month Israel refused yet another Hamas truce proposal brokered with the mediation of Egypt: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/20/news/Israel-Palestinians.php Israel is completely and utterly addicted to the conflict today and whenever – without exception – things start to stabilize and it begins to look like the violence might slow down Israel launches some sort of provocation in full knowledge that the Palestinians will respond and no peace will come about. It has happened so many times, over and over again, every single time there is a ceasefire or even a lull in the violence that ANY observer recognizes the trend.

Quite simply, if the violence stops, then Israel has to actually talk to the Palestinians, and that means negotiation. Negotiation, of course, is utterly anathema since any negotiation HAS to result in loosening Israeli control. Israel has no intention of loosening its total control so it behooves Israel to keep the conflict active (just as long as it is “low level” and therefore also kept under control). The current “low level” fighting serves Israeli interests of keeping negotiation at bay just fine, despite the Bush administration’s pressure to resume talks.

“Gee, do you think that if maybe, just maybe, they put the same effort into building a stable society that they do attacking Israel, then maybe, just maybe, they’d have a little something to call their own by now?”

I’ll grant that the Palestinians certainly could be investing more time and energy in their own internal situation; but ultimately as long as they remain under Israeli military occupation and are denied any possibility for material development nothing will change. Without exception, whenever either the Palestinians or foreign donors build up something to help, Israel bombs it into oblivion; because of course ANY Palestinian development slightly reduces Israel’s 100% total control and the Palestinian’s 100% dependency. The famous EU-built Gaza airport or the PA/Arab League built Palestinian parliament building in Abu Dis are cases in point. Palestinian development results in some small degree of Palestinian empowerment and that is manifestly unacceptable to Israel; and so Israel deliberately, systematically, and undeniably prevents any such development/empowerment.

A long journey starts with a single step. The Palestinians have not taken that step yet.

Funny. I didn’t know Israel sent troops into South Africa and attacked blacks. I simply MUST get my hands on the history book you use.

Your answers show that you really don’t understand the difference between going to war with somebody and looking like somebody or being friends with somebody. Until you figure that out, you’ll never understand the responsibility of the Arab nations that attacked Israel WITH the Palestinians. Any Arab nation that was not involved in these wars does not hold the same responsibility.

As to Israel controlling their electricity, why don’t the Palestinians have power plants. Hmmmm. Maybe because their leaders, including their hero Arafat, siphoned off all the money that was meant to make their lives better and give them infrastructure? I guess Israel forced them to steal all that money, right?

I’ll throw you a softball. You say the Palestinians can only react because Israel has all the control. For the last 2 decades, show me an instance when the Palestinians called a ceasefire but the Israelis escalated the violence anyway.

“Israel didn’t offer Arafat everything he asked for other than the right of return and the promise of negotiations on Jerusalem? GONG!”

Wrong. Israel didn’t offer the Right of Return, Al Quds (Jerusalem), the Jordan Valley (thus control of its own borders), the West Bank aquifer control (control of its own water), and insisted that the West Bank be divided into seven nifty ghettos to be completely surrounded by (and thus controlled by) Israel, no control over its own electricity, no control over its own trade, no control at all. As I said, Israel has NEVER offered even the most constrained requirements for a viable Palestinian state. And as Gaza plainly shows, mild restructurings of the occupation isn’t going to get Israel off the hook.

“As to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc., you can not separate them from the Palestinians at that time as they attacked the Jews as their allies.”

Of course I can, just as surely as I can separate Germans and Austrians (who look the same, speak the same language, and share the same religions); Canadians and American (who look the same, speak the same language, and share the same religions); and so on and so forth.

“Look up the word “allies” and it will make sense. These were not sympathy actions.”

So you’re arguing that the Palestinians are somehow responsible for the way Egypt treated its Jews after the Lavon Affair (when the Israelis recruited Egyptian Jews for a terror campaign against US and British targets) in the 1950’s; the way the Iraqis treated its Jewish community later in the 1950’s (after Israel launched a deliberate bombing campaign in Iraq to force the Jewish community to flee to Israel); and so on and so forth? What treaty is that in? Based on what?: that both peoples happen to be Arabs? That would be like holding me personally responsible for the Qana Massacre in Lebanon based on the fact that both the guilty parties and myself happen to be Jews. Save your racist scapegoating for someone stupid enough to fall for it. Palestinians are no more Iraqis than I am an IDF war criminal as the plight of the Palestinians in Iraq since our invasion graphically illustrates.

“They went to war, side by side, against the Jews. That ties them together, not the fact that they are all Arab.”

Who did? When? I assume you mean 1948? I guess you’re going to tell me all about the mighty Palestinian legions that formed up in 1948? LOL. Why don’t you tell us about all the Palestinian Arab formations of that conflict, don’t worry just make something up.

“As to the fact that the Palestinians did not leave at the behest of their leadership, citations please. Please show me the documentation that the Jews ran them out,…”

Uh, virtually all literature from virtually all sources since the mid-1990’s (once the IDF records were declassified) discussing the issue. Pretty much everyone, from all sides, aside from a few old fashioned “see no reality” types concede the point today. Where to begin, just about anyone from Benny Morris (he’s a radical right-winger who thinks Ben Gurion didn’t go far enough and is sorry the ethnic cleansing wasn’t more comprehensive) all the way to Ilan Pappe (he’s a radical left-winger that shares my one state perspective), and literally ANYONE in between. It was all in the IDFs own records, in their own words.

“As to Arab nations helping resettlement, puh-lease. Their track record sucks. They’ve left the Palestinians to dangle for decades. …”

Fair enough.

“You’re placing all blame and responsibility on Israel and assigning none of it to the Palestinians. And I’m not buying it.”

That’s not really accurate, the Palestinians have made plenty of mistakes too, but there is absolutely no getting around the fact that since Israel has total control of the situation and ALL the power, so any peace has to come from Israel. All the Palestinians have the option of doing is resisting and reacting. If Israel changes the situation on the ground, the Palestinian reaction changes accordingly. Since 1967 the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic has been a nothing more than a story of Israeli action and Palestinian reaction.

“You can pretend all you want that Israel hasn’t been threatened with total destruction since it was first formed, and not formed by throwing people out of their land, but that doesn’t make it true.”

Israel faced a serious (though not overwhelming) threat in 1948 and also in the beginning of the 1973 war, but that’s it. The rest of this “oh, Am Yisrael is so pathetic and weak we must cower behind our bunkers and indiscriminately slaughter civilians for fun and games” nonsense carries no weight whatsoever. Israel controls the world’s seventh most powerful military, has enormous natural capital, technology, and people: the idea that they are about to be “thrown into the sea” by the Palestinian is just patently absurd by any conceivable standard.

“Are you really ignorant to the fact that the ancestor’s of many of these people attempted genocide the instant the state of Israel was formed?”

No one has attempted genocide in Palestine in the last few centuries (on either side mind you). The only genocide the Jewish people has faced in recent times was in Nazi Europe and again, the Palestinians can’t be held responsible (yes, just to save you the trouble, DESPITE the Mufti’s attempt to win Nazi support. One of those very real mistakes made by the Palestinian leadership).

“Yes, it isn’t exactly nice that many Arab national groups have turned their backs on the Palestinian Arab nation, but then again, it isn’t their responsibility or problem.”

Exactly right, just as it isn’t my responsibility or problem to try to defend Israel’s utterly indefensible behavior.

“Repeat after me. Allies. ALLIES. They fought for and with the Palestinians, in an alliance with Palestinian leaders. So yes, it is their problem.”

So, I guess by your standards, since Israel was allied to Apartheid South Africa, Israel has a direct responsibility to provide housing for the millions of homeless South African Blacks? Similarly, since Israel was also allied to Iran under the Shah, I guess that means Israel bears direct responsibility for SAVAK and thus owes the Islamic Republic reparations? Likewise, since Israel is currently allied to Turkey, I guess Israel should be held responsible for Turkish actions against the Kurds? Do I have it right?

As for all the “who started it all” nonsense, we can go around in circles with that all day and all night and not convince the other of anything. The poiont is, starting from right this second, the current reality as it exists this very moment, one state is the de facto reality and there is no reason to believe this will change.

Are you really ignorant to the fact that the ancestor’s of many of these people attempted genocide the instant the state of Israel was formed?

Yes, it isn’t exactly nice that many Arab national groups have turned their backs on the Palestinian Arab nation, but then again, it isn’t their responsibility or problem.

Repeat after me. Allies. ALLIES. They fought for and with the Palestinians, in an alliance with Palestinian leaders. So yes, it is their problem.

The states that create refugees DO have an obligation to rectify this…

Hence the Arab states that were the initial aggressors have the responsibility.

You really don’t seem to understand who attacked first, do you?

Israel didn’t offer Arafat everything he asked for other than the right of return and the promise of negotiations on Jerusalem? GONG!

As to Sharon and the intifada, try looking up Imad Faluji and Jabril Rajoub.

As to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc., you can not separate them from the Palestinians at that time as they attacked the Jews as their allies. Look up the word “allies” and it will make sense. These were not sympathy actions. They went to war, side by side, against the Jews. That ties them together, not the fact that they are all Arab.

As to the fact that the Palestinians did not leave at the behest of their leadership, citations please. Please show me the documentation that the Jews ran them out, and it had nothing to do with an enormous f***ing attack meant to literally wipe the Jews from the face of the earth. “Grow up” is not exactly convincing. Just the opposite. It smacks of a lack of reality.

As to Arab nations helping resettlement, puh-lease. Their track record sucks. They’ve left the Palestinians to dangle for decades. They’re a convenient excuse to make the masses angry at Israel rather than their own oppressive governments and downtrodden economies. Want to hazard a guess at how equitably the oil wealth is distributed in Saudi Arabia?

You’re placing all blame and responsibility on Israel and assigning none of it to the Palestinians. And I’m not buying it. You can pretend all you want that Israel hasn’t been threatened with total destruction since it was first formed, and not formed by throwing people out of their land, but that doesn’t make it true.

First, each of these different situations has its own unique dynamics and circumstances and it is well beyond the scope of this discussion or forum to go into a lot of detail here. However, what I will say is that the primary difference is in most (not all) of the cases you cite, the refugees received and accepted alternative citizenships that were extended to them by other willing states. Such is not the case with the Palestinian refugees. Further, keep in mind I am ONLY talking about the 4-5 million official refugees recognized by UNRWA. Some 4-6 million refugees HAVE in fact accepted alternative citizenships (excluding Jordanian, whose citizenship was forced on the Palestinians as part of its illegal and unrecognized attempt to annex the West Bank 1948-1967 and never recognized) and homelands and are no longer legally refugees, though they’ll argue that with you.

In the case of the UNRWA recognized Palestinian refugees, they – meaning in general – have never sought an alternative homeland (refusing to surrender their claim to their homeland and national identity) and they have never been offered full citizenship by another sovereign state that wanted them. The refugees themselves are not interested in shedding their national identity and just claims to return home and the neighboring states – recognizing that Palestinians are NOT Lebanese, Egyptians, or what-have-you (despite the Zionist myth that all Arabs are exactly the same people) and don’t want them. This means it is an issue to be worked out between the victims (the refugees) and the perpetrators (the state of Israel) and no one else (though of course realistically lots of third parties would probably be willing to help).

“But part of it was because Arab leaders felt little compassion for their fellow Arabs and preferred to use them as pawns in a geo-political game.”

There is some truth to this mantra, but it is also immaterial. Yes, it isn’t exactly nice that many Arab national groups have turned their backs on the Palestinian Arab nation, but then again, it isn’t their responsibility or problem. It isn’t the American Jewish community’s responsibility or obligation to defend the Jews of Israel; of course you can if so inclined, but you don’t have to, their fight is only ours if we choose to accept it. The same is true with other Arab nationalities regarding the Palestinians. The only parties with specific obligations are those directly involved namely the Israelis and Palestinians.

“But they have no more obligation to absorb any of them than other nations have to absorb refugees they created.”

On that score you’re completely incorrect. The states that create refugees DO have an obligation to rectify this: both the policies and practices that created the refugees as well as the result. Further, and one of the factors that makes the Israeli situation somewhat unique is that Israel controls 100% of the refugee’s homeland, meaning there is no alternative at all. In many cases refugees are allowed to enter protected areas (look at the Darfur protection force, the NATO force over Kosovo, the UN force over Bosnia, &c.) but that isn’t an option in the Occupied Palestinian Territories because Israel flatly refuses to surrender any control whatsoever over every square inch of Mandatory Palestine. Yes, it is Israel’s – and only Israel’s – problem, though should Israel make a reasonable offer I have little doubt that many third parties would be willing to help.

Bingo. This is the ONLY reason American Tabliangelicals support Israel: their slavering fantasies about the ultra-violent end of the world, which (for the past nineteen centuries) will start Any Day Now. That a huge war around Jerusalem would be a disaster for the actual Israelis living there means nothing to these estachological idiots. Fools like Kristol think they can play our rubes for more killing of Ay-rabs (or Persians), but it’s Kristol playing the fool. Put his fat ass in a uniform, give him a rifle, and send him to Anbar. Now.

They only have such a right if there is a double standard. The international community has not generally recognized such rights for other refugee groups (except maybe for the refugees themselves, but certainly not for descendents) that came into existance in the post-WWII upheaval of the late 1940s. For instance, there is no right of return for Karelian refugees, Polish refugees, Hindu and Sikh refugees from what became Pakistan, Moslem refugees from what became India, Jewish refugees from the Arab world, etc. That the international community has not forced Israel to deal with “its problem” is merely a nod to the fact that it doesn’t even consider other nations to have such a problem.

Even more recently, many people of relatively recent Bihari origin have been dispossed of everything and are pretty much refugees in their land of birth, or for the older ones land of settlement since 1947 (Bengladesh), since they fought on the wrong side in Bengladesh’s war for independence. Has there been any real pressure to repatriate these refugees to India?

Of course, the real issue is why the Palestinian refugee problem still exists when other such problems don’t. Part of it is because of a lack of resources for settling refugees in the Arab world (although the Jewish community, having been recently decimated, somehow could deal, although not very humanely it must be confessed, with refugees pouring in from the Arab world). But part of it was because Arab leaders felt little compassion for their fellow Arabs and preferred to use them as pawns in a geo-political game.

We could have used Sudeten refugees in a geo-political game against the Soviet block. The Finns could have used Karelian refugees similarly. India and Pakistan could have used refugees in game playing. As could have Israel. But they didn’t. They said “we have refugees in land we control [for comparison, remember Arab countries occupied "the occupied territories" before Israel did], and they are our brethren, so we should deal with them and integrate them into our society”.

But the Arab world did no such thing. Israel as a richer nation (although nowadays the Arab world has some oil money floating around it seems) without whose existance there wouldn’t be a Palestinian refugee problem does have a responsibility to help, in financial terms and logistical support, to resettle Palestinian refugees. But they have no more obligation to absorb any of them than other nations have to absorb refugees they created.

Remember, nations displace people. At the very least, you always end up having a need for eminant domain. People have no “right” to return anywhere. The displacers have an obligation to compensate the displaced, help them with resettlement, expenses, etc. — but there never has been really an enforced right of return for refugees to the extent somehow “international law” says Israel must allow for returns. It would be a double standard to force Israel to absorb such refugees when other nations have no similar pressures from refugee groups coming into existance in that same era.

Absolute rubbish. There is no Palestinian state, even the “Palestine Authority” created by Oslo was specifically defined as a formation in the Oslo Accords with absolutely no pretense to being a national government. Further, from the very outset, the Palestine Authority has been under total Israeli control: Israel decides where it can go, what it can do, and what resources it has at its disposal. To argue that the Palestine Authority represents anything other than a semi-autonomous creation (and thus branch) of the Israeli government is simply false. The Palestine Authority has never had ANY authority that conflicts with Israeli whim, period. As I said, there is ONE effective state between the river and the sea that controls every square inch, and that state is Israel.

“The Israelis have reached out several times and essentially said that if the Palestinians would just stop trying to kill them, they could have their own state. No Palestinian leader has accepted that basic premise.”

Israel has never done any such thing. Oh, that isn’t to deny that it has offered the Palestinians some extended ghettos and Bantustans that remain under Israeli control, but that isn’t offering a real state. Israel has never even pretended that it will leave East Al Quds, the Jordan Valley, the taps of the West Bank aquifers or anything else that would allow for a real Palestinian state.

“And when Israel turned over the Gaza without the precondition of no attacks, the attacks increased. This proved out the Israeli position beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

And Israel NEVER “turned over the Gaza” to anyone. It removed the settlements, but that is all it did. Israel still controls all the borders of Gaza (even that with Egypt & the entire coast), still controls the electricity, still controls all movement of goods and people, the airspace, and every other aspect of Gaza except the arrangements confined inside this Bantustan. IF Israel had actually left Gaza and really allowed it to be free the Palestinians there would have a lot better things to do than attack Israel; but as it is, “Disengagement” was little more than a slight readjustment of the Occupation and nothing more. And as long as the occupation continues, so too will Palestinian resistance.

“The Palestinians have all the power over their own condition.”

The Palestinians have absolutely no power over their condition and the only way an ethnic separatist “two state solution” could possibly work is if Israel agrees to end their absolute monopoly on control, which they flatly refuse to do. So, now we have to deal with the reality of the situation: one state.

“BUT what is important here is that they are not forcibly imposing their religious-centric state on millions upon millions on non-Muslims that have no other place to go;”

Maybe not in whatever fantasy land you’ve dreamed up, but in reality this is exactly the case.

“Instead they performed mass forced ejections of Jews and took their property against their will.”

The Palestinians did? Exactly when and where was this? And just to save you the trouble, don’t even try to blame the Palestinians for whatever situations Jewish people faced in other Arab states. The Palestinian Arab people are not Egyptians, Yemenites or Iraqis, they are Palestinians. If you have a problem with actions taken by Egyptians, Yemenites, or Iraqis, you need to take it up with them; the Palestinian people aren’t responsible for that and can’t be held so. Yes, they are all Arabs, but your argument is akin to saying that Jews in say Canada should be held personally responsible for the actions of Jews in Israel; another racist proposition.

“In contrast, the majority Palestinians left at the behest of their own leaders so it would be easier to kill all the Jews. Oops. Didn’t work out as planned.”

This antiquated mythology has been thoroughly disproven from all angles today: Israeli, Palestinian, and third party sources; most convincingly from the records of the IDF itself. Grow up and face reality.

“And ask any non-Muslim woman (who isn’t allowed to drive or show any part of herself) in Saudi Arabia whether or not the Saudis forcibly impose their religious-centric state on them.”

Fair enough, and as stated before, I’m not fan of that system (or our support for it) either. However saying that other people are doing bad things is no excuse for Israel’s behavior either.

“Looking at the firepower that Israel has at its disposal, and the fact that every cease fire has been violated by the Palestinians, I’d say they’ve held back pretty damned well, especially in the last decade.”

That’s only because it isn’t your children that are being methodically massacred. http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/ (click on the “Children Remembered” button)

“Also, you fail to mention that the Palestinian attackers use civilians as cover.”

That’s the result of imprisoning the entire Palestinian people and since Israel controls every square inch of the land, the only way to avoid being in the “war zone” is to leave, which is EXACTLY what most Zionists want, the Palestinians to simply vanish from reality for the glory of greater Eretz Israel. But that isn’t going to happen, primarily because the Palestinians have no where to go as no one else wants millions of politicized angry Palestinian refugees even if they were willing to give up and leave (which they aren’t).

“He actually cleared the trip with Arafat and his security forces BEFORE he ever went there. Arafat approved the arrangements.”

Oh yeah, this is just straight wingnuttery; when reality doesn’t fit the script, just make it up… blah. You plainly have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about in this respect.

“And even if they did get along, how would the Israeli economy absorb that many essentially unskilled people? It’s simply an an economic burden they can’t afford.”

Now this is a reasonable contention that has been raised in one state circles. However, realistically, it isn’t near as insurmountable as it seems since a) Israel already has exhaustive experience in integrating large numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled immigrants (as dominated all the post-1948 Aliyahs); and b) most of the West (and possibly even much of the Arab world) would be willing and able to invest heavily in finally resolving this issue.