On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 05:01:34PM +0200, Halupovich Ilana wrote:
> From: Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<But land is the foundation of the state. Furthermore, Zionists arguably
> have a religious *duty* to make all of Palestine part of Israel. With the
> above givens a land-for-peace deal is quite possibly a fools bargain.
> If Palestinians renounce terrorism and police themselves to enforce the
> renuciation then the deal is ever so much less attractive.>>
>
> I think I need translation here, pls.
I'll give it a shot:
Land is very important to the state. Because of their religion, Zionists
MUST try to claim or conquer all of Palestine and make Palestine part of
Israel.
If we assume the truth of (1) the extreme importance of land to the
state and (2) that the Zionists religion compels Zionists to obtain and
keep Palestinian lands, then we conclude that:
(a) The Zionists should not trade land for peace because it is
inconsistent with their religion and their goals
(b) If we additionally assume that the Palestinians will act first
and by themselves (unilaterally) by halting acts of terrorism, then
there is no motivation at all for the Zionists to return land to
the Palestinians. That is, the only real motivation for returning
the land is the hope that by returning the land, the Zionists will
purchase an end to terrorist acts by the Palestinians. Without this
hope, there is no reason to return land to the Palestinians.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
