|... by Thao
... they will never accept the presence of Arabs on a single foot of historical Israel ...
The extreme position includes not accepting the presence of a Palestinian state. Read the above quote again, and consider that there are a million Israeli Arabs, Israeli citizens, and there are Arab Knesset memebers, too, freely elected in Israeli elections. So what does that fact do to the "never accept the presence of Arabs" hyperbole?
The one political party that did promote the idea of complete population transfer ... Meir Kahane's Kach party ... was outlawed. Outlawed. It was racist and made to be a criminal entity. Would that the racist parties on the Palestinian side be treated so ...
The absolute requirement to dismantle completely all settlements and remove all Jewish presence from a single foot of the one-day Palestinian state is one that baffles me. Why can't the settlements become part of the state? Why can't Jews come under Palestinian jurisdiction?
And land-for-peace has been a very, very long-lived idea. Immediately after the Six Day War in '67 ended, Israel made the offer. Immediately. Stop the belligerence and we will return the land. The Arabs responded with the famous "3 no's" of no recognition, no negotiation, no peace.
Maybe Israelis got tired of the no's. But for the last decade it was a centerpiece of Israeli politics, the basis of Oslo and every accord afterwards. And the Palestinians have yet to crack down on their "militants" ever. Ever. Which was also the basis of Oslo, and all the accords that followed.
And buses still blow up.
Why the government won't abandon some settlements? Many they will. They have said so over and over. And Hosni Mubarak of Egypt was quoted (on NPR this past week, I think it was, will look for links) as saying that in his opinion, Ariel Sharon is the only Israeli leader who can credibly remove settlements, because he was the one who dismantled them in the past to honor a land-for-peace deal, with Egypt.
The land-for-peace equation may happen, but there has to be some peace in exchange. Blowing up busloads of civilians isn't the way to show you're interested in peace, or any sort of coexistence.
Yitzkhak Rabin, BTW, and Ehud Barak, and Shimon Peres, Laborites all, also had large numbers of casualties under their watch. Sharon's policies didn't start this. The terrorism has increased exponentially, but it isn't new. What caused the massive acceptance of it in the Palestinian population? Your guess is as good as mine, but the indoctrination of pure anti-Semitism ... which is not just a Palestinian problem, but it makes peacemaking very difficult, doesn't it.
(The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nassrallah, was quoted last year saying, "If they [read: Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." The Syrian Minister of Defense, Mustapha Tlass, said on television two years ago that "if every Arab killed a Jew, no Jews would remain.")
Now look at a map of Israel and the West Bank. And remove the West Bank from Israel. Israel is then several jutting peaces of land with small strips connecting them. Just as the Palestinians fear their country will be ... and reread the quotes in parenthesis. Would you want borders like that with a state jutting into your middle and cutting you in pieces with hatred inculcated into its population from earliest childhood?
Which is why there is the demand for an end to violence, an end to incitement. An end to indoctrination.
It's all a circle-round, right? Over and over, each side with the same kvetches and complaints and ...
I still say, and believe it utterly, that if the murder ceased completely, the Palestinians will see their aspirations realized ... but if they continue ... :spiral