On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:06:24PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't understand.
That makes two of us. But I wasn't interested in a rationalization of bad behavior, which is what I thought I was getting. I said it seemed unfair. You seemed to disagree and gave examples of similar poor behavior. I don't dispute that there was a lot of unfairness in the world at that time and historically. Do you dispute that the treatment of the people living in that region was unfair? Because it sounded to me like you WERE disputing it. Anyway, I am trying to get a clear a picture as I can. I believe if I were in the position of the Palestinians we were discussing, I would think it was unfair. Also, please don't assume that by making this statement I am in any way implying that I think Palestinians should be given right of return. If and when I do have something to say about that, it will be spelled out clearly. > It's actually a recognition of history. Things we wouldn't do now were > done in the past. But we can't go back and undo every single act of > injustice that ever took place anywhere. All we can do is understand > them. Yes, I think we are in complete agreement. I am looking for understanding. > They could have had a Palestinian state in 1947. They refused. Who specifically refused? The Arabs living in Israel and Palestine? Or do you mean Arabs, collectively, signified by the attack of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon? > Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, and Egypt > controlled the Gaza Strip from 1948 to 1967. Why didn't they proclaim > a Palestinian state in those territories during that period? I suppose because the leaders of those countries were still trying to bring about Israel's destruction, and the Palestinan refugee situation seemed to them to help their cause. > could have and nobody could have stopped them. So even if the creation > of Israel was a monstrous injustice, which I do not for a second > think, was the only possible solution to that to be to hold out, if > necessary forever, waiting for the perfect solution (perfect in Arab > extremists' minds, note) rather than take some admittedly less than > perfect interim step? I have no idea what the solution would be. I'm just trying to understand the situation and history. > Israel was willing to take whatever the UN gave them in 1947; the > Arabs held out for everything. How come the Arabs never get any blame > for this? I am confused by the ambiguous phrase "the Arabs". Who, specifically, do you want to have more blame? > I repeat my point, that the Palestinians have been utterly betrayed at > every moment in their sorry history by those who claim to speak for > them. If only they would realize this and make true peace. They could > have a state tomorrow if they would really do this. Yes, I read your point the first time. It does not seem inconsistent with the facts that I know. But it also doesn't sound like a feasbile solution at the present time. Dan convinced me last year with some survey results that a significant fraction (was it 70%, Dan?) of the population of historic Palestine is in agreement with the general attitude and policies of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
