Israel Wall

[caesar]

"Sharon orders wall construction to continue

Israeli PM rejects World Court ruling that barrier between Israelis and Palestinians is illegal

______________________________________________

When are Israel and the USA going to try to work with the rest of the world in bringinh peace to the Middle East and reduce the danger of terrorist attacks in North America. The USA ia, again, set to veto another resolution against Israel which will just bring more turmoil and Arab resentment that nothing will be done to see that their rights are observed. There are always two sides to a story and only Israel's concerns ever get addressed when the USA backs them up; whether they are right or wrong. This is not justice.

[KrustyKidd]

The wall is wrong only in the location. However, given the rash of suicide attacks, the Israeli government would be irresponsible to not continue with it, no matter what ruling is made by an world body. It's first responsibility is to it's own citizens protection.

Working under that fact, the world should sanction Israel in trade and such, with the US ceasing all aid and funding. Simultanious ceasation of all aid and funding to the Palestinian Authority who have not stopped these attacks.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The wall is wrong only in the location. However, given the rash of suicide attacks, the Israeli government would be irresponsible to not continue with it, no matter what ruling is made by an world body. It's first responsibility is to it's own citizens protection.

Working under that fact, the world should sanction Israel in trade and such, with the US ceasing all aid and funding. Simultanious ceasation of all aid and funding to the Palestinian Authority who have not stopped these attacks.

Israel should withdraw to its own borders and defend itself aggressively there. The state of Israel faces no immediate strategic danger from any neighboring government, and the criminal actions of some extremists don't give them license to inflict military rule on the entire Palestinian people.

[Hugo]

Israel should withdraw to its own borders and defend itself aggressively there.

Been there, done that. The result was several wars of aggression against Israel by her Arab neighbours, from which Israel was barely able to prevail, given the size of the armies set against her and the surprise attacks.

The problem is that Jewish Israel next to any Arab state is much like the USSR next to Nazi Germany - you know there will be trouble, the only question is when. Israel seeks to establish a buffer zone for its own security and to preserve the freedom and lives of Israeli citizens.

[Black Dog]

Been there, done that. The result was several wars of aggression against Israel by her Arab neighbours, from which Israel was barely able to prevail, given the size of the armies set against her and the surprise attacks.

The problem is that Jewish Israel next to any Arab state is much like the USSR next to Nazi Germany - you know there will be trouble, the only question is when. Israel seeks to establish a buffer zone for its own security and to preserve the freedom and lives of Israeli citizens.

There has not been an national Arab/Israeli conflict since 1973. Most of Israel's former enemies have since recognized its right to exist. Furthermore, Israel has the largest military in the region and the backing of the world's only superpower, as well as being the only state in the region with WMD. The survival of the Jewish state is not in question. To argue that the annexation and ethnic cleansing of the Occupied Territories is a matter of survival is fallacious.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Israel should withdraw to its own borders and defend itself aggressively there.

Been there, done that. The result was several wars of aggression against Israel by her Arab neighbours, from which Israel was barely able to prevail, given the size of the armies set against her and the surprise attacks.

Let's be clear, shall we.

Israel has "been there done that" with perfectly satisfactory success. Furthermore, as I noted, the strategic danger from neighboring states has receded to virtually nothing now that Israel has vastly superior forces.

Also, let's be accurate... the conflicts in the 50's and 70's may have been 'surprise attacks.

But 1948 war was not a surprise, and the 1967 war was a surprise attack by Israel.

[Hugo]

Israel has "been there done that" with perfectly satisfactory success.

Israel sustained almost 10,000 casualties. To put that in perspective with the Israeli population, that's as though the US lost half a million troops - almost as many casualties as the US lost in WWII.

Perfectly satisfactory. You're a heartless one. Seems to me that what's satisfactory to you is dead Jews.

1967 war was a surprise attack by Israel.

You need to read up on the history. The attack was made in response to:

Massive Arab armies suddenly gathering on the Israeli borders, with no plausible explanation except the rather blatant statements by Nasser that "we challenge the Jews to fight", "we will enter Palestine with the soil drenched in blood", "the Arabs are ready for war" and so forth

Nasser's order for UN peacekeeping forces to withdraw entirely, shortly before the attack

The Egyptian closure of the straights of Tiran - which, according to the peace terms of the last conflict, was an act of war which would make Egypt the aggressor and not Israel, as you claim

[The Terrible Sweal]

First, your insinuation that "dead Jews" is somehow appealing to me is totally baseless and suggests you know no limits of decent respect for people who's opinions differ from yours. I think you owe me an apology.

Second, your cries for the dead combattants on ONE SIDE of the fight indicates clearly enough what your underlying political views are, but does not materially change the fact, my point, that the state of Israel has been entirely successful in defending itself.

Third regarding 1967, I am well acquainted with the history, thank you. The question between us just now was: who surprised whom. On that point, the facts are clear. Israel attacked first, and crowed victoriously about the surprise they acheived. You have recited the Israelis justifications for doing so, but they don't change the point we were discussing.

[Hugo]

I think you owe me an apology.

None will be offered. I believe that your earlier ideas show that you have a blatant disregard for human life, because you advocate deserting a policy that demonstrably saves lives and returning to one that cost hundreds of thousands. If you do have a regard for human life I suggest you rethink your reasoning on this issue because it isn't in keeping with your ethics.

the state of Israel has been entirely successful in defending itself.

In that it exists, yes. Along the same lines, you could say that WWII had been entirely successful, but the simple fact remains that had France and England gotten rid of Hitler in the mid-1930s, many tens of millions of lives would have been saved and untold damage would have been avoided.

What you are saying is that a successful defence is irrelevant of the costs, that a phyrric victory is as good as a bloodless victory. It is not so.

regarding 1967, I am well acquainted with the history, thank you.

Your posts show otherwise.

The question between us just now was: who surprised whom.

According to the United Nations and international law, Egypt committed the first act of war and was the aggressor in 1967. The fact remains that Israel has never initiated a war against it's neighbours.

Israel attacked first

in response to what could only have been a surprise attack being planned. It's called a pre-emptive strike and it does not shift the onus of aggression. Note, too, that Arab-sponsored terrorist attacks in Israel were on a massive rise shortly before the war. With our newly heightened awareness of terrorism, it would not be unfair to call those the first shots of the war.

[idealisttotheend]

I believe that your earlier ideas show that you have a blatant disregard for human life

Indeed where is your regard for the lives of the Palestinian civilians cut off from their homes by this wall. Where is your regard for the dead Palestinians killed by Israel in this conflict. I think an earlier statement is correct in that the only lives you seem to have a regard for are those of Israelies.

. With our newly heightened awareness of terrorism, it would not be unfair to call those the first shots of the war.

So says Bush. Funny that when the FLQ were commiting acts of terror Ottawa did not declare war on French people. Nor has the IRA caused Britian to declare "war" on Northern Ireland or the Catholic population therin. The USA has similarly not declared war on anarchists within it's borders or people who live in log cabins in the woods.

Why is it then acceptable to declare war on Palestine because of the actions of Hamas?

For the record I agree that 1967 was not Israel's fault nor do I see a problem with building a wall around Israel, so long as it remains restricted to it's rightful borders.

I am unconvinced that the argument for a "buffer zone" on someone else's land is morally superior to the one for "living space" in Poland. Indeed with the settlements one could easily argue the two are one and the same in reality. Israel did have a hard time through 1973 and if the occupied territories should not be returned to their respective pre-1973 owners (a justifiable argument) then a buffer zone is best established as either a Palestinian state or a UN protectorate. Walling off land and keeping it under Israel's control (formally or de facto) is annexation pure and simple.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think you owe me an apology.

None will be offered. I believe that your earlier ideas show that you have a blatant disregard for human life, because you advocate deserting a policy that demonstrably saves lives and returning to one that cost hundreds of thousands.

Interesting. Now not only do you imply I am bigoted, now you accuse me of despising all mankind. (Both utterly false.) In my view, that you will cavalierly make such unfounded imputations against someone conscienciously discussing the issues of the day in a civilized manner makes you a very bad person.

the state of Israel has been entirely successful in defending itself.

In that it exists, yes.

More than that. It has lost no territory, it has grown more prosperous over time, it has obtained weapons and allies that hold it proof against any danger of extinction, and it has sufficient power to impose an Occupation on a neighboring people. Don't short-change Isreal's successes out of your desire to paint it as a victim.

What you are saying is that a successful defence is irrelevant of the costs, that a phyrric victory is as good as a bloodless victory.

No. You are trying to say that success at a cost is not success. You are mistaken. Success, even at a cost is still success. If you WANT to talk about the costs of that success, that is a different discussion from the one I am having with you. If you want to change the ground we are on, just let me know. But don't pretend that one thing is another.

regarding 1967, I am well acquainted with the history, thank you.

Your posts show otherwise.

How so?

According to the United Nations and international law, Egypt committed the first act of war and was the aggressor in 1967. 

And that act was?

...a pre-emptive strike and it does not shift the onus of aggression.

At least according to the 'pre-emptor'. But again, the 'onus of aggression' is not the discussion we're having. We are talking about surprise attacks, are we not?

[Hugo]

Indeed where is your regard for the lives of the Palestinian civilians cut off from their homes by this wall. Where is your regard for the dead Palestinians killed by Israel in this conflict.

The Arab-Israeli wars killed far many more Arabs than Israelis. I'm not interested in returning to a situation that made these wars more possible and likely.

Why is it then acceptable to declare war on Palestine because of the actions of Hamas?

Because the Palestinian government endorses, aids and abets the actions of Hamas. The Northern Irish government does not endorse the IRA, the Quebec provincial government does not endorse the FLQ and so forth.

Now not only do you imply I am bigoted, now you accuse me of despising all mankind.

I am confused as to why you would say this were false when you are advocating a return to a policy that made possible wars costing tens of thousands of lives when an alternative exists.

It has lost no territory, it has grown more prosperous over time, it has obtained weapons and allies that hold it proof against any danger of extinction, and it has sufficient power to impose an Occupation on a neighboring people. Don't short-change Isreal's successes out of your desire to paint it as a victim.

You think the wars cost Israel nothing? I beg to differ. I forget who this is attributed to, but there was never a bad peace, nor a good war.

How so?

Because, for instance, you asked me:

And that [first] act [of war] was?

And the answer to that, by the way, would be the Egyptian blockade of the straits of Tiran.

We are talking about surprise attacks, are we not?

I never denied that Israel struck first, what I am claiming is that Israel was not the aggressor in the 1967 war or any other.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Now not only do you imply I am bigoted, now you accuse me of despising all mankind.

I am confused as to why you would say this were false when you are advocating a return to a policy that made possible wars costing tens of thousands of lives when an alternative exists.

It is odd, and somewhat vexing that you are so quick to apply moral judgments against me based on your political biases. This leads you into three important errors which I will correct for you:

-the policy I advocate was not the cause of the conflicts at that time;

-circumstances have changed such that now that policy doesn't have even the dangers you perceived then;

-I don't advocate it out of a belief that it will cause harm, quite the contrary.

It has lost no territory, it has grown more prosperous over time, it has obtained weapons and allies that hold it proof against any danger of extinction, and it has sufficient power to impose an Occupation on a neighboring people. Don't short-change Isreal's successes out of your desire to paint it as a victim.

You think the wars cost Israel nothing? I beg to differ.

Since I never said anything of the sort, I invite you to fight such strawmen on your own time and not trot them out for my sake.

I never denied that Israel struck first, what I am claiming is that Israel was not the aggressor in the 1967 war or any other.

Ah, so you were making a separate, tangiential point.

[Black Dog]

Now not only do you imply I am bigoted, now you accuse me of despising all mankind.

I am confused as to why you would say this were false when you are advocating a return to a policy that made possible wars costing tens of thousands of lives when an alternative exists.

The alternative (that is: the status quo) will result in tens of thousands of deaths. But, to some Israel apologists, that's okay, so long a sit's the "right" people doing the dying. :angry:

[Hugo]

leads you into three important errors which I will correct for you:

-the policy I advocate was not the cause of the conflicts at that time;

-circumstances have changed such that now that policy doesn't have even the dangers you perceived then

You have not proven either. I think it fair to say that the former policy, the one you advocate, would perpetuate this conflict longer than necessary. The source of the hatred and violence in this conflict is the Arab world, excising it requires going to them, as much as excising Nazism required the invasion of Germany.

Since I never said anything of the sort, I invite you to fight such strawmen on your own time and not trot them out for my sake.

Then what was your point? Israel has been doing pretty well, so don't worry about the destruction caused by the wars and 10,000 dead?

I think it is the case that Israel has done very well and, had it not had to fight off Arab aggression for so long, it would have done even better. And so, possibly, would the Arabs.

Ah, so you were making a separate, tangiential point.

I originally said:

The result was several wars of aggression against Israel by her Arab neighbours, from which Israel was barely able to prevail, given the size of the armies set against her and the surprise attacks.

To which your reply was, basically, "Ah, no, in one of those wars Israel actually fired the first shots despite not actually being the aggressor." I said that there were "surprise attacks." There were. You tried to find an exception to a general rule you thought I made but did not.

The alternative (that is: the status quo) will result in tens of thousands of deaths.

Certainly a great deal fewer Arab dead than they have lost repeatedly trying to invade Israel. Between Israeli occupation and excursion beyond her borders and a retreat to those borders, it's clear to me that the latter choice will result in more death and suffering in the long term. That choice has no chance for peace, the current one has a little.

[Sully]

Well I think Israel has every right to defend itself as it sees fit. UN is a joke so I wish people would quit bringing up condemnations and resolutions passed by these jokers who reside far away from the real life issues faced by both Israelis and Palestinians.

What measures would Canada take to prevent actions like terrorist bombings in our malls, churches and local cafes? Hmmmm I only wish we would be able to respond with the determination of Israel, but instead we would probably put together commitees to study the subject or better yet we would allow these bombers to immigrate here. The world can say what they want to, but they do not have to live it, they can watch the death tolls rise from the comfort of their living room.

Do you really think that Israel has any other choice but to take these measures?

The Palestinians are a fractured bunch. They have no central authority, no one has the power to call off suicide bombings. Israel is dealing with various group subsets of Palestinians who are hell bent on the destruction of the Israeli state and to eliminate all jews off the face of the earth. This is not an exaggeration, there are groups solely designed for this purpose. So until Palestine becomes united there will be no peace. Thankfully Israel has superior firepower, it would be a lot bloodier if they did not.

Here are the problems as I see it in this area

1.) The UN, why are we looking towards these guys for the answers, their history shows they have no real authority or ability to act.

2.) The US, why are they always waiting for a US brokered peace deal, do it yourself.

3.) No centralized power within the Palestinian state

4.) Terrorist groups are allowed to exist, the Palestinians need to destroy these groups if they truly want peace, not the Israelis.

5.) Israel must show as much restraint as possible, until they are forced to act.

6.) Media needs to be more unbiased in reporting. There are no winners in this issue, a Palestinian life is just as valuable as an Israelis.

[Black Dog]

Certainly a great deal fewer Arab dead than they have lost repeatedly trying to invade Israel. Between Israeli occupation and excursion beyond her borders and a retreat to those borders, it's clear to me that the latter choice will result in more death and suffering in the long term. That choice has no chance for peace, the current one has a little.

The only "peace" the current situation offers is the eventual elimination of the Palestinian people. Certainly, israel's neighbour's no longer pose a serious threat to its existence. Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with israel since 1973, while Lebanon and Syrai are both badly militarily outmatched by Israel and in no position to mount an effective assault. So your (unsupported) assertion that a retreat to the Green Line would lead to renewed hostilities and an eventual end to Israel doesn't hold so much as a drop of water.

Do you really think that Israel has any other choice but to take these measures?

Yes. Israel has yet to mount a serious effort to negotiate a good faith with the Palestinians. Good faith negotiations are impossible so long as Israel continues the occupation.

1.) The UN, why are we looking towards these guys for the answers, their history shows they have no real authority or ability to act.

A curious statement in this context, given that Israel owes its very exiostence to the UN.

2.) The US, why are they always waiting for a US brokered peace deal, do it yourself.

Given the close ties between the US and Israeli governments, Israel's dependancy on the US and its influence on U.S. policy it's pretty obvious that the U.S. would have a role to play. That said, U.S. support is what has allowed Israel to get away with so many of its crimes.

3.) No centralized power within the Palestinian state

And why is that? A big problem here is that Israel's repeated incursions have resulted in the destruction of the Palestinian civil infrastructure. Furthermore, widespread corruption among the PA's leadership (which is to be expected in such an environment) has damaged its ability to be a viable foce. Of course, continued military occupation is no big help either.

4.) Terrorist groups are allowed to exist, the Palestinians need to destroy these groups if they truly want peace, not the Israelis

Again: why do terrorist groups exist and why do they enjoy such popular support? To answer this, first ask yourself how you would feel about living in squalor as a non-citizen under a foreign military occupier.

5.) Israel must show as much restraint as possible, until they are forced to act.

Given the historical trend that shows periods of increased Israeli activities in the Occupied Territories lead to increases in terrorist activity, it's easy to see that Israel has acted in procation more than its been provoked.

6.) Media needs to be more unbiased in reporting. There are no winners in this issue, a Palestinian life is just as valuable as an Israelis.

Agreed.

[Sully]

Yes. Israel has yet to mount a serious effort to negotiate a good faith with the Palestinians. Good faith negotiations are impossible so long as Israel continues the occupation.

Ya well then convince all Palestinians to hold off of the suicide bombings during negotiations that might help. I see Israel more serious about peace than the Palestinians.

A curious statement in this context, given that Israel owes its very exiostence to the UN.

Ya well the UN now is not the UN then. UN today is a joke, just a place for the world's politicians to retire to after their domestic careers are over.

Given the close ties between the US and Israeli governments, Israel's dependancy on the US and its influence on U.S. policy it's pretty obvious that the U.S. would have a role to play. That said, U.S. support is what has allowed Israel to get away with so many of its crimes.

Sure there are close ties, who do you think Israel gets its weapons from, who are the only ones that will support them, the US and of course that influences their decisions. But they can still negotiate peace without the US.

BTW how has the US supported "CRIMES" because they agree or do not condemn Israel every chance they get, oh boo hoo. Do you want them to be like Europe and the UN and condemn them everytime an Israeli sneezes. Thankfully the worlds only superpower backs up Israel or people with your point of view would overlook the actions of the Palestinians acting against Israel.

And why is that? A big problem here is that Israel's repeated incursions have resulted in the destruction of the Palestinian civil infrastructure. Furthermore, widespread corruption among the PA's leadership (which is to be expected in such an environment) has damaged its ability to be a viable foce. Of course, continued military occupation is no big help either.

Now thats the biggest load of S#$t. Of course blame Israel because the Palestinians cannot coordinate themselves, is that Israel's fault, NO. Sorry but Israel is not striking deep into Palestine territory anymore than they have to. If destroying a couple terrorist huts or homes is decimating Palestinian infrastructure, then there was not much to begin with. Course there is corruption among the PA, and of course you would love to blame the Israelis for that one right, is that the Israel's fault, NO. Well stop the suicide bombings and have a coordinated government, then peace might prevail.

Again: why do terrorist groups exist and why do they enjoy such popular support? To answer this, first ask yourself how you would feel about living in squalor as a non-citizen under a foreign military occupier.

I would feel pretty dam crappy. But to ask you a few questions, how would you want your government to act after your daughter's wedding was attacked by a suicide bomber, killing many family members? How would you like to drink coffee at the local cafe, always looking over your shoulder? How would you like knowing that only a few miles away a group of people are huddled together devising ways to kill you because you are Jewish?

Terrorists exist because of stupid ideals that are carried out by brainwashed, ignorant people or stupid people.

Given the historical trend that shows periods of increased Israeli activities in the Occupied Territories lead to increases in terrorist activity, it's easy to see that Israel has acted in procation more than its been provoked.

Show me your study that you have undertaken and correlation that proves your thesis, since you have obvious put all the facts together on this one. If its so easy to see, it should be easy to provide the facts. Lets see the numbers and correlation.

[caesar]

[QUOTWhat is Canada’s Position on the Israel-Palestine Dispute?

In April 2002, Canada denounced the Israeli offensive in the Occupied Territories and called for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces. Canada has also denounced the Palestinian suicide bombings.

With respect to the overall peace process in the Middle East, Canada has the following official position:

Supports the security, well-being, and rights of Israel as a legitimate, independent state.

Supports the Israel-PLO Peace Agreement signed on September 13, 1993.

Does not recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip)

he legitimate rights of the Palestinians must be realized. This includes the right to self-determination through peace negotiations.

Recognizes the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the principal representative of the Palestinian people.E] "

[caesar]

Israel should get out of Palestinian land. Any wall should have been built well within their own country.

Israel has killed 3000 + Palestinians; The Palestinian terrorists have killed 1000 Israelis.

Israel has a well armed military including Nuclear weapons. Palestine does not have any organized military.

Israel has the complete backing of the USA. Who needs protecting from who?

[Sully]

Israel should get out of Palestinian land. Any wall should have been built well within their own country.

I am all for Israelis building a buffer as far awy from Israel as they can, when they have barbarians at the gates!!!

Israel has killed 3000 + Palestinians; The Palestinian terrorists have killed 1000 Israelis.

Provide proof of that claim please!!!

Israel has a well armed military including Nuclear weapons. Palestine does not have any organized military.

Whats your point, oh ya, must be Israel's fault!!!!!

Israel has the complete backing of the USA.

Thank God they do!!!

[caesar]

1.) The UN, why are we looking towards these guys for the answers, their history shows they have no real authority or ability to act.

Why is the UN ineffective? Because member countreis; particularly the USA uses its veto irresponsibly.

This veto should be removed. It is not used responsibly.

When international laws are plainly being broken; a veto should not protect them from taking responsibility.

Member states not paying their dues on time. The USA was always way behind in paying its share. It only caught up when trying to get votes to invade Iraq.

[caesar]

Can Israel be criticized fairly?

http://middleeastinfo.org/article4621.html

This si an interesting article by a well respected Jewish author. You should read it.

[Hugo]

The only "peace" the current situation offers is the eventual elimination of the Palestinian people.

Or the destruction of their leadership, who believe in hatred, oppression and abrogation of freedom. If you look at that leadership it's obvious that, once again, Jews are being served up as scapegoats for somebody else's problems. In terms of their brainwashing, racism, endorsement of violence and irrational hatred the Palestinian state is an equal of Nazi Germany. This is not hyperbole.

So your (unsupported) assertion that a retreat to the Green Line would lead to renewed hostilities and an eventual end to Israel doesn't hold so much as a drop of water.

Unfortunately, as 9/11 showed, you simply can't sit at home and wait for terrorism to come to you. Not if you want to maintain a scrap of civil freedom and avoid living in a police/security state. The only way to defeat terrorism is to excise it at the source, and that won't be served by retreat. The current policy may not be the best one, but a retreat to the Green Line would be the worst.

As to the destruction of Israel, there are 1.5m Arabs living in Israel, so Arab terrorists can move with relative impunity. It doesn't take an imagination the size of Tom Clancy's to envision a nuclear device or strain of plague in Tel Aviv.

[Black Dog]

Or the destruction of their leadership, who believe in hatred, oppression and abrogation of freedom. If you look at that leadership it's obvious that, once again, Jews are being served up as scapegoats for somebody else's problems. In terms of their brainwashing, racism, endorsement of violence and irrational hatred the Palestinian state is an equal of Nazi Germany. This is not hyperbole.

Yes its hyperbole of the worst kind. It also cuts both ways. After all, restriction of movement, collective punishment, ghettoization, arrest and detention without due proces, seizure of property, and mass populatiion transfers were hallmarks of the Nazi regime. All are practices used by Israel in its occupation. Hatred can be found on both sides of the Green Line:

When Israeli soldiers opened an exhibit this month documenting some of their own misdeeds while serving in the tense West Bank city of Hebron, they caused a brief stir.

At a photographic institute in Tel Aviv, the soldiers, all recently discharged, offer video testimony of gratuitous harassment and abuse of Palestinians, like firing tear gas just to get a reaction. Hanging on the wall are dozens of car keys confiscated from Hebron residents, a punishment both common and unauthorized, soldiers say. And a photo taken by a soldier shows graffiti, presumably written by civilians, which reads, "Arabs to the gas chambers."

Former Israeli Soldiers Tell of Harassment of Palestinians

Unfortunately, as 9/11 showed, you simply can't sit at home and wait for terrorism to come to you. Not if you want to maintain a scrap of civil freedom and avoid living in a police/security state. The only way to defeat terrorism is to excise it at the source, and that won't be served by retreat. The current policy may not be the best one, but a retreat to the Green Line would be the worst.

The only way to excise terrorism is to "drain the swamp": that is: address the causes of terrorism. Israel's occupation is by far the biggest greivance against the state, which manifests as terrorist activity. As much as you'd like to spread the belief that Arabs are predisposed to anti-semetism, racism is excrabated by the occupation. So retreat to the green line as an expression of good faith by the occupying power would do more to defuse terrorism than any other measure.

As to the destruction of Israel, there are 1.5m Arabs living in Israel, so Arab terrorists can move with relative impunity. It doesn't take an imagination the size of Tom Clancy's to envision a nuclear device or strain of plague in Tel Aviv.

Why? Because all Arabs are sympatheitic to terrorists?

That said: 9-11 showed that such attacks can happen any time anywhere: Israel's occupation doesn't make it less likely. If anything, it makes it more likely.

Ya well then convince all Palestinians to hold off of the suicide bombings during negotiations that might help. I see Israel more serious about peace than the Palestinians.

Most Palestinian violations of negotiated cease-fires came about as a result of continues Israeli incursions into the Occupied Territories, settlement construction and so forth. In other words, the trends show that, even as negotiations have progressed, Israeli violations of Palestinian rights have continued.

BTW how has the US supported "CRIMES" because they agree or do not condemn Israel every chance they get, oh boo hoo. Do you want them to be like Europe and the UN and condemn them everytime an Israeli sneezes. Thankfully the worlds only superpower backs up Israel or people with your point of view would overlook the actions of the Palestinians acting against Israel.

Who's occupying who, again?

Well stop the suicide bombings and have a coordinated government, then peace might prevail.

And how are they suppoossed to that without resources and while under military occupation? Israeli withdrawl from the OT is a fundamental precondition of peace and the establishment of a viable Palestinian civil state.

would feel pretty dam crappy. But to ask you a few questions, how would you want your government to act after your daughter's wedding was attacked by a suicide bomber, killing many family members? How would you like to drink coffee at the local cafe, always looking over your shoulder? How would you like knowing that only a few miles away a group of people are huddled together devising ways to kill you because you are Jewish?

I could counter with similar examples from the other side, but why bother? Neither side has the monopoly on inhumanity.

Terrorists exist because of stupid ideals that are carried out by brainwashed, ignorant people or stupid people.

Terrorism is also a result of desperation.