Lets try this. Israel pulls back from towns past the 1967 green line. They don't give up Jerusalem. They don't let those who fled during the various wars back in. Palestine is created. They don't stop terrorist attacks from happening. Israel invades to stop them. The UN and everyone else throws a fit about Israel attacking another nation. The arabs refuse peace with Israel because they didn't give in on every demand. There's a Palestine but no peace. Nothing changes other than Israel giving up land for more war.
Lets try something else. Israel crushed the terrorist structures, gets rid of arafat and lets the people vote for someone who wants to really help the people. There are enough people who denounced arafat as corrupt as to be worth listening to. The killing stops, the palestinian police keep the peace on their side, the arab 'brothers' are restricted from sending guns or money to fund terrorism. The palestinians live in peace with Israel but want their state. By policing their own people and stopping most if not all of the attacks, they've shown that peace is something that they want. Israel has no choice but to give them a state as well as make other concessions like a foothold in Jerusalem. Peace reigns for a time. Which do you like? The one where the palestinians take control and responsibility for their future or the one where they just keep attacking? I may be against giving up parts of Israel but if its for a real peace I'm willing. Life over land as long as its true. At 02:48 PM 4/9/02, you wrote: >Isn't that the author's point, that so many people have an all or nothing >approach to the problem, yet there are many sides to each position? > >I don't believe any intelligent person would deny the fact the terrorist >attacks are detestable and ongoing. I will likely never visit Israel or the >Middle East, but the stories I hear coming out of there are gut-wrenching >and often move me to pray for peace. > >The question seems to be what is the most effective solution to ending this >horrible situation. The article made me think about what that means to all >sides. > >M > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:36 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: Re: Rumblings of Peace > > >There is an alternative to reading it as it doesn't tell the whole story. >There are not 2 parts but 1. If there was safety then there could be peace >and the palestinians can have their state. If a state is given without >safety then it'll just be a terrorist state where attacks will come from >every day. Don't believe me? How about this: > >"Israel Radio reported that hours after the IDF withdrawal from Tulkarem, >Palestinian gunmen have fired from Tulkarem at Trans-Israel Highway workers >within the Green Line. There were no casualties in the shooting." > >At 01:09 PM 4/9/02, you wrote: >>Here's an article on the Palestinian / Israeli conflict from the Washington >>Post: >> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16895-2002Apr8.html >> >>There is no alternative to reading it. >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
