Yeah, don't disagree with you there.  But, I think it's important to make sure that's acknowledge by both sides up front.  Until it is, not much progress can be made.


If it's truly impossible, Palestine must be compensated for any and all land lost, ideally with land from other places in Israel.  If it's just really inconvenient (which I think will be the case in most instances), it needs to go back.  It's not going to be an easy thing to get peace, and both sides are going to have to give things up to get it.  I did see some settlers being displaced, and thought it was a great start.  But there's still lots of settlements, and if I'm not mistaken, even some new ones being built.


I'd actually guess that money to compensate palestinians for lost land could be rounded up from quite a few countries, if they thought it was going to bring about a peaceful resolution.  The US, the EU, probably some Arab states as well.


I think the macho issue is part of the problem, and needs to be addressed head on.  I think any nation that attacked israel while it was implementing an internationally recognized resolution to the problem would not be looked upon well by the rest of the world.  I realize the worry about letting the palestinians or a third party do the policing, but I think it's the only viable long term solution.  It goes back to the right to exist issue.  If there is to be a palestinian state, Israel can't feel like it has the right to police it.


Nope, doesn't sound sane.  And as long as people like that have power, I don't see much hope for a peaceful resolution.  Again, it goes back to the right to exist idea.


True, there are strings attached.  But other countries (and other places in the US) aren't getting even that.


It does.  By quite a significant amount.  Check out
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=586921
for the figures.


Don't disagree with anything there, really.  My point was mostly that I think there are places in the world that would probably be better places for us to send our aid money than Israel, largely because I think Israel is really doing pretty well for itself compared to a lot of places, and probably doesn't need our help nearly as much as some other places do.

Probably because it is such a significant country in the region.  It is a cornerstone of the Middle East, and one of the few countries that is a complete and true ally to much of the Western world (primarily the U.S.).  So whereas we walk on eggshells with Iran, we know we can trust Israel, and security and safety to Israel is important in our foreign relations with that area.  I think Bush and many past presidents have spoken on this in the past.

I noticed this comment on Tycho's link:

My that sounds very preachy, for your information it isn't because it's inconvenient it is for real reasons, but then you don't know what it can be like living here. Israel has proven repeatedly that it is willing to give up land for peace, are you forgetting the Siani paninsula and the Egyptians? A lot of settlers were displaced, though not all, yes theres still settlements, and yes new ones are being built but again that is against the wishes of the government, many of these settlements are built by the religous right. I hardly think that the people of America have a right to comment on compensation, what happened to the compensation promised to newly freed slaves after America's civil war, weren't they promised a mule and a certain amount of land? And what about the American Indians, have you given them back their rightful land? No, but then in many cases your government doesn't even trust their leaders to use their own money wisely.


Maybe you should tell the Arab states not to be so macho see how well that goes down, your simplifying complex issues that is part of there religious and national makeup. If Palestine policed it's citizens Israel wouldn't need to, do you really think Israel likes being portayed as a monster in the news when it needs to respond to an attack, or perhaps we should just ignore the fact when we know that bombs and guns are being stockpiled to use against Israeli's. As for third party, like I said before when others do the policing Israeli's usually end up dead, need i mention Munich? Why should Israel depend on another party to keep Israel secure? Unless you didn't know Israel is the country other countries come to when they need advise on security including America.

As for the money Israel receives well I can't apologise for it but I'm sure America gets plenty in return, Israel has a great deal of R and D going on militarily and in civilian circles, I'm sure America gets it's share in the developing technology. There is also the Mosad, which is known as one of the best intellegence agencies in the world.

Yeah, america dropped the ball on those things, big time.  They're some of the most shameful moments in our country's history.  I'm not saying the US is perfect, not by a long shot.  I'm not even saying it's better than Israel (though I'm not saying it's worse--it's not something I've actually given much thought to either way).  I'm not telling you what Israel should do to be like the US, or earn the US's respect or anything like that.  I'm saying, this is what Israel needs to do if they really want peace.  And it's not going to be easy, and it's going to involve giving up things that they'd rather not give up.  Saying "well, the US did this, and the US did that" is pointing fingers at others in unrelated situations, and not looking at the current situation.  You can feel that I have no right to offer suggestions on how to resolve the problem, because I'm not Israeli, and fair enough.  But a big reason (perhaps the single biggest reason) that the problem keeps going on and on is that both sides are only concerned about the bad things the other side did.  When it comes to admitting and fixing the bad things they've done, they instantly go on the defensive, and try to justify what they've done.  "Well, they did this first" or "We already done this little bit" and the like.  Israel seems to just want palestine to change, and the palestinians just want israel to change.  If there is to be any progress, both sides have to look seriously into the mirror, and say "yes, our side has done a lot of very bad things.  Whatever our reasons for doing so, it needs to stop, and it needs to be fixed."  I'll be the first to admit that Israel has done a lot more of that than palestine so far.  But they haven't done it 100% yet.


The reason Israel should rely on another party to keep Israel secure, is because the things Israel does to keep itself secure are part of the reason that Israel needs security.  It's a cycle, and if there is to be peace, that cycle has to be broken.  I think you could probably convince me fairly easily that Israel is better than any other country at protecting its citizens.  But that's just in the short term.  The things they do for that short term security upset a lot of people, and create new terrorists.  Again, it's just one of those pills that I think Israel has to swallow if there's going to be any progress.  This is a hard situation, and both sides are going to have go give up things they don't want to give up.  They're going to have to accept certain risks and compromises that they don't feel are ideal.  It's not an issue of who's right and who's wrong, and it's not an issue of who will provide the best security.  It's an issue of what needs to be done to achieve peace.  If you prefer the status quo, fair enough, I think there are plenty of other people who do to.


Oh, no apology needed or expected.  I don't blame Israel for it at all.  And I have no problem with money going to Israel in general.  It just makes me a little uncomfortable that we give so much money to a comparatively well off country when we give so little to countries suffering much more (and to which we've promised to give money but don't).

Like I said before I don't agree with all the steps Israel has taken to make it's people secure but you have to admit that they seemed to be working currently. Also you must realize that it takes two to make peace, Israel has done a lot in the name of peace and is willing to do more but right now the Palestinian leaders aren't really interested in peace. Like I said before Israel was willing to give the Palestinians nearly everything they wanted, there are basicly two main sticking points which I personally cant see being resolved. The rght to return for Palestinians and old Jerusalem and the other holy sites. You can't say we didn't offer them some of Jerusalem as we did offer them east Jerusalem though of course they wanted more. Making peace is a matter of give and take, we're willing to give but the Palestinians aren't going to get everything they want to expect it is unrealistic.

I'm sorry if I sounded dogmatic but your tone was a little provoking, I wasn't comparing Israel to the US just saying that Israel is doing the best it can in the current situation. You just have to understand that some of the things your suggesting is like offering up our throat to the knife, do I wish it wasn't the case of course but this is what we have to deal with.

More or less agree with you on this.  Like I said, I'm fairly sympathetic to Israel in this situation, and feel they've made more effort than the palestinians have.  Though, being in the better position currently, I also think the burden to act first does rest more on their shoulders.  So yeah, Israel has offered a lot, and done many different things.  But I don't think they've done everything needed.  I will say that at times when I've been extra frustrated with the whole situation, I've thought Israel should just unilaterally withdraw, and get completely out of palestine, close the borders and say "there, we're out, you deal with it."  I don't think it'd be the best solution, but at times I think waiting for an effective palestinian government to come into power to have a fruitful negotiation is getting things nowhere.


I think that's a great analogy, and honestly, it is more or less what I'm suggesting.  In order to have peace, the two sides need to show trust, even to the exent of putting oneself in a position of danger.  I don't think Israel would be destroyed by doing this, but I fully admit that it would probably suffer more attacks in the short run from it.  I do think a bit of "turn the other cheek" is necessary for things to get anywhere, though I realize that Jesus' words might not carry as much weight with you as they might for others here, especially coming from an atheist!  An "eye for an eye" has its place, but in this situation we're in "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye..." already.

If the punching ever stops, someone will have gotten in the last punch.  I think one side is going to have to accept being the one that got punched last without retaliating in order for there to be peace.  If neither side is willing to take on that role, the fists will just keep flying.  Because Israel has more top-down control, I think it's in a better position to be the "bigger man" and let the other side have the last word in order to stop the cycle.  I'd be just as happy for the palestinians to play that role, but I don't think their leaders have enough control over their people to reign them in completely.

You speak of the attacks as if they are nothing but I think there is an element to them you don't understand or simply don't know about. During the last cycle of violence many of the attacks were geared towards children. Bombing the pizzaria in Jerusalem at a time when many school kids were there as it was a favorite hangout, targeting buses at a time when kids were going home from school, there was also a car bomb that was stopped thanks to the security guard at the school. It's one thing to target adults we know theres risks to living in Israel but to target children is something else, and proves that Hamas and other of their ilk dont want peace.

I know the attacks are horrible.  I don't claim to have ever experienced anything so bad, but I'm not trying to play down the evil involved in them, nor the impact on the Israeli people.  I agree that Hamas doesn't want peace.  But there are a lot of palestinians who do.  And if Israel wants peace, they're not going to get it by killing people.  Organizations like Hamas feed off the reprisals that their attacks bring.  Reacting to them makes them stronger, not weaker.  I'm not saying Israel should take it on the chin because Hamas don't deserve to be hit back at.  I'm saying Israel should take it on the chin because that's the only way to beat Hamas and achieve peace.

I believe that the primary reason that Palestine resorts to terrorism is because, from their point of view, it works. After all, Israel was formed because of Jewish terrorist attacks against British and Arabic targets. So, the way the Palestinians see it, if one group can what they want through targeting civilians, why shouldn't they be able to?

I don't condone terrorism, by the way, but I don't believe that Israel's hands are any cleaner than the Palestinians in this tragic affair of the last sixty years.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:08, Wed 09 Jan 2008.

How many Israeli suicide bombers are there? Defending one self should be considered vastly different then trying to kill innocent people like those terrorists. When you have so many countries attacking you in numerous wars, people are going to be killed in the process.

I really do think Tycho is right.  The goal of terrorism in this case is to escalate the conflict and keep it continually militarized.  Hamas WANTS Israel to react with a military strike, since a militarized strike against any part of Palestine will further sour relations.  Hamas isn't playing a game about combat, even though combat is a primary tool, it's playing a game about perceptions.  If Israel doesn't realize this, they may win each battle, but they'll win the war.

I could say that the Jews fighting against the British were freedom fighters and not terrorists but some would say that that is simply samantics, I don't agree. There were 4 groups that worked for the creation of Israel, the main group  Ha'gana which means to guard concerned itself in teaching it's people how to defend themselves and the Jewish people in Palestine and smuggling as many Jews into Israel during that most terrible of times. Yes there was an extreme group Called the Stern Gang but they did not target women and children but British soldiers, who weren't even supposed to be in Palestine by '47, at least that is what I remember from history class, I need to check my facts, but I remember that the British Mandate was supposed to end in the early forties, it didn't because of WWII. Yes some terrible things were done, there was only one Gandi, anyway Gandi's methord wouldn't have worked for the Jews of Palestine not with the phrase 'lambs to the slaughter' ringing in their ears from the Holocaust.

katisara speaks of a game about perceptions but frankly I find it hard to believe that any American can defend the actions of the Palestinians at times, how can the American people have forgotten the Palistinian reaction to the news of what happed on 9/11.

Yes there was an extreme group Called the Stern Gang but they did not target women and children but British soldiers, who weren't even supposed to be in Palestine by '47, at least that is what I remember from history class

Are you trying to tell me that the ninety-three people in the King David Hotel were all British Soldiers, when we know for a historical fact that they weren't?

Defending one self should be considered vastly different then trying to kill innocent people like those terrorists.

Blowing up a hotel full of innocent people is defending yourself?

No I didn't say that the Stern Gang was an extreme faction and every other group condemded their actions at the King David Hotel, and I believe that shortly after that that group was phased out. But if you know about the King David then you know it was a base of operations for the British and that they were the worst hit by the attack.

Im not going to defend that attack, there is no defence but the British were not blameless either when they pulled out they handed over a fortress that guarded the only rout to Jerusalem to the Arabs basicly leaving a whole city to starve. And need I mention how they restricted immigration of Jews from Europe to Palestine during the '40, that action alone was criminal.

But it wasn't masterminded by the Stern Gang, it was an Irgun operation (the political predecessor of the Herud and then Likud parties in Israel), and commanded by Menachem Begin, who would later become the Prime Minister of Israel. This was not an act of an ostracized extremist group.

True but if you don't think Begin didn't suffer repercusions your wrong, besides that action was an aberation not the norm as you know. Most of the defence forces were finding ways to smuggle people and arms into the country.

Elana, from the way you speak, I get the impression that what you want to see is not a compromise, but an Israeli victory.  I also get the impression that you don't feel that Israel has anything to apologize for--you seem to feel every action taken on its behalf has either been justified, or carried out by some other group that Israel needn't apologize for.  You tend to focus on "Palestine does this, Palestine does that!" type arguments to justify Israeli actions, rather than looking towards what actions will bring about peace.  You're more concerned about who's in the right, than what the right path should be.  From what I've seen, as long as that's the mentality, the fighting will go on forever.

That's not true Tycho, she's said that there has been plenty of things done by her nation that she regrets.

I can sympathize with her, if someone was living 50 miles away and killing children by the busload though I won't be pissed and want them dead.  Perhaps it is because we see things through the eyeglass of the media that we tend to be so sympathetic to the Palestinians and now the jews.

I'm not saying who is morally right.  I'm talking about who is effective.  The Palestinian extremists who are using terrorist methods are going to win as long as Israel enforces its laws in foreign countries.  Every time a rocket goes from Palestine into Israel, that's a very minor victory at a significant cost (for Palestine).  Every time Israel goes into Palestine with guns drawn, that is a major victory at little cost.

You say that Israel must do this to protect its image.  Well unfortunately that would mean Israel is caught in a war that will literally last as long as the area is occupied or until technology allows for true pin-point strikes.  Both of those are going to take quite a while.

But ultimately, if you and the rest of Israel are willing to accept this eternal war, there is nothing I can do about it.  Clearly not all of Israel is willing to suffer that though, since they have accepted a few punches in order to break the loop.  They've shown more reserve about going into Palestine in order to catch terrorists.  We just need to keep that progress going (at this point, especially on the Palestinian side).

Honestly we're seeing the same thing in Iraq right now.  The US invaded on the understanding that there were nuclear weapons there that would be given to terrorists to attack the US.  However, once we went in there and shot a lot of stuff up, all of a sudden a bunch more people were polarized against us and more people became terrorists.  It's a very similar situation (although slightly different).  The US MUST create an orderly, effective society or Iraq will view the US as invaders who just broke everything.  In order for the terrorists 'to win', they don't need to kill more US troops, they just need to make society disorderly, rife with conflict and dangerous.  That's why the normal military mentality of 'they shot at us, let's find them and kill them' would lead to us losing in Iraq.  The new mentality of 'let us create a government, promote peace, defend the basic utilities and provide appropriate care' is the only way to find success.  It's a completely different mindset, one in which bullets really don't count for very much.

I didn't say I wasn't sympathetic with the jews (or more accurately, Israelis of whatever race or religion).  I most certainly am.  But I'm not all that concerned with who's right and who's wrong at this point.  What I'm more concerned about is fixing the problem.  Both sides have all the justification they'll ever need to kill one another.  Both sides have done plenty of bad things, and continue to do plenty of bad things.  Both sides view the people doing the worst things as representative of the other side, but view the people on their side doing the worst acts as fringe groups.  If you think about it terms of "they did X, so I need to do Y to get back at them," the cycle will just keep going.  Like I said, anyone coming at the problem trying to obtain victory will not get peace (unless they plan to entirely wipe the other side out, which I hope we can agree is not right).  People trying pick sides and say "we should support Israel" or "we should support Palestine" want one side to win, which implies the other has to lose.  I want a peace.  I want both sides to own up to the wrongs they've done, accept the other's right to exist, and take the difficult actions needed to curb the extremists on their own side (rather than trying to stop the extremists on the other side).  I've said already that I feel Israel has done a better job of it than has palestine has, but "we've done more than them" is not a legitimate reason not to do the rest.  "They haven't done what they were supposed to" is not a reason to stop doing what you need to achieve peace.

Tycho your wrong and if you think I sound like that I would hate for you to hear one of the settlers who many dont want any compromise with the Palesinians. Originally I was very left wing which over here means a person wants peace, however my belief altered somewhat when Arafat said no to the peace deal, it made me and most of the majority of the left realize that the extreme Palestinian groups don't want peace.

Yes I can sound a bit strong at times but then I think almost anyone would if they lived in Israel and had to live with the reality of the situation.

I think Israel needs a sign from Palestine that it is really serious about peace I think that if we did get a signal the world would be amazed what Israel would be willing to do for peace.

Unfortunately, if Palestine isn't interested in peace, the only way for Israel to get it is through force of arms applied with extreme prejudice.  Probably not the best solution.  So I certainly agree, as long as Palestine is unwilling to partake in the process, there's nothing Israel can reasonably do.

I have heard settlers, and their views turn my stomach.  They're every bit as hateful as the radicals in hamas.  But I think it's Israel's responsibility to curb their efforts, just as it's palestine's responsibility to curb the efforts of terrorists.

You're free to wait for the other side to make sacrifices for peace before you do, but you should be prepared to wait a long, long time.  I hope it comes, but I don't see why anyone would expect the palestinians to blink first.  Every time Israel blows up a palestinian building, more non-terrorists become terrorists.  More moderates become extremists.  It's your country, not mine, and I can't have any real influence on the politics.  If Israel wants the status quo, the status quo it shall have.

That may be but something you seem to be ignoring is the fact that Israel could be willing to flip sumersaults for peace, if it doesn't have a coresponding partner to work on making that dream a reality then it wont happen.

As for a signal that Palestine was ready it probably wouldn't even have to be a major thing, I think many Israeli's would take it as a sign of good faith if Gilad Shalit, the kidnapped soldier was returned to us without Israel making huge concessions, even if it was only to get his remains which I think to most peoples minds is the best case senario now adays.