Thats the way I see it. It seems to be the way most people are seeing it. Maybe we can agree do disagree on this point?

Yes, I do think we have a lot of leverage in the Muslim world. If we will never have the confidence of the Arab/Muslim world, why bother trying to build a democracy in Iraq? For that matter, why bother trying to encourage democracy anywhere in the region? Why bother maintaining embassies and giving financial assistance to Arab states?

There is peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan. There are also no outstanding land issues between these three nations. However, in the case of both Lebanon and Syria, Israel still hasnt returned land claimed by these nations. (Sheba farms and the Golan Heights, respectively) It is no coincidence that these nations have not as yet made peace with Israel.

The PLO in 88 accepted the idea of the 2 state solution, implying Israel's right to exist. The idea behind the subsequent Oslo framework was known as "land for peace". They were also quite succesful at preventing terrorist attacks against Israel during this period, indeed much more succesful than Israel has been lately, acting on her own. It is also important to remember that from the Israeli side settlement building continued during this period, negating the "land" side of the equation.

I don't think it was at the time (1917) though I could be wrong about this.

Huh? Was the elimination of Israel part of the negotiating platform of the PLO during the Oslo process? They got everything else they demanded? Oslo II? What changed?

You must have. What I said is: "A large part of the HAMAS movement is about providing charity and assistance to poor Palestinians. In this sense Hamas is a humane movement."

I also never said that the goal of HAMAS was NOT the destruction of Israel. The goal of HAMAS is to destroy the Jewish state of Israel and replace it with an Islamic one.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Frankly, I would be very surprised if Israel survived (as a Jewish & democratic state) to her 100th birthday. It remains to be seen whether this will come about through violent or peaceful means. Hopefully the latter, maybe something like this:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-23-04-2.html

Sure. But I wish I knew how advice could be permission.
So we can get some influence in the Arab world, because we don't have any now.
Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, the area they occupied is now occupied by UN forces. The UN does not recognize Syria's claim to Sheba Farms. Both nations have recognized Israel's right to exist.
I was being facetious. Still, on the very day he shook Rabin's hand to seal the Oslo Accords, Arafat assured a Jordanian TV audience that the liquidation of Israel was still his goal.
Yes, they got everything they demanded: withdrawal of Israeli forces, recognition of a Palestinian state, Palestinian self-rule. Still, the terrorism didn't stop. Israel conceded more - the terrorism didn't stop. Then Ehud Barak offered joint control of Jerusalem, the Palestinians responded by unleashing the deadliest terror campaign Israelis have ever known. By this time Israel learned that the idea of the Oslo Accords was not to achieve peace with Palestinians, but to keep them at the bargaining table while Hamas blew up civilians.
Then how can there ever be peace? How can Bush be dictating terms to a group like this? Why would Israel need permission from the US to protect itself from an organization that wants to destroy it?
Interesting read, but truly a dream. It will take more than 50 years for Muslims to live in harmony with Jews.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

The day of judgement in the Quran would be when Allah is the sole authority, and no soul would have power over any other. And the skies burst, the earth will dissolve, the dead will rise, and so on. It takes some heavy paraphrasing to link this to killing jews, though. Actually, it seems the founders of this charter put themselves in the authority to dictate the will of Allah, as the Quran instructs in parables which they are deciding what means, which would be an interpretation of the sayings. I suppose their actions would be tested in whether or not they were righteous at the day of the judgement.
You're full of shit, fatboy. The areas were divided and most of it was to have israeli military control. Read up on the A, B, and C areas, how one terror bomb led to "legally" continued settler activity, both violations of the accords(which you obviously have not read either), and then try to lie more convincingly.
Source and date for such statements, if you please.
The second intifada? The Camp David talks, a desperate and failed attempt, was the absolute last hope for the Oslo accord to succeed. Previously, settler activity on the west bank and gaza had been increasing steadily, while the living standard and employment rate in the palestinian areas plunged. Now, after the talks broke down, Israel would, at least initially, be facing a small ragged resistance group and the occational terror bomb, while the palestinians would face a life in refugee camps living off charity, mostly. And into this picture Sharon, fresh prime minister with tentative support from the less moderate elements of the Israeli government wants to demonstrate his new policy: A visit to the temple mount with a small army and a clear enough message - "We go where we please". This just after the peace talks definately were over. And, suprisingly, Hamas gains support along with the idea that Israel does not want to negotiate, ever. I wonder why.
A dastardly plan. I suppose the Israeli almost fell for it as they of course wanted to believe so hard that the palestinians wanted to have peace and really were good people. :drool:

The Oslo- accord was not established to paint a state border, or to specify any final solution. The accord was initiated with the thought that unless the Palestinians would have some kind of authority, and any kind of power centre and self rule, they would not be able to participate in any peace talks. That is, they wouldn't have anything to contribute, like the Israeli constantly chide them for. The elections and so on was pushed with this in mind, trying to counter the ever prevailing extremist elements by removing it's reasons while strengthening the palestinian statehood. However, the end of this would be a two state solution or at least serious negotiation, that much is obvious. It is strange to see how close Hamas and Israel was, and is, on the issue of establishing this kind of palestinian authority. But I guess noone wants to saw over the branch their sitting on.

Yeah, you're right. Hamas doesn't want to kill all the Jews.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...i?ArtNum=42022
"[The Jews] killed thousands of Palestinians in tens of massacres and they destroyed homes. So I think it is just to do with them as they did with us." - Abdel Aziz Rantisi
Ahhh, Arafat didn't agree to all the conditions of the Oslo Accords in 1993, right? Then, he didn't return to the bargaining table in 1995 with different conditions (self-rule in more cities), right? He didn't walk out on the Camp David talks after being offered a Palestinian state, the Temple Mount, Gaza, almost the whole West Bank and half of Jerusalem, right? Yes, I must be confused.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/...ast.summit.02/
July 21, 2000
No, I think Israel has probably known all along that Arafat and Hamas are not interested in negotiating. They humour us, though.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Uh. I am pretty sure I was referring to Hamas' loose interpretation. I don't know about if all, some or just jews in general is their target, though. I really couldn't say.

Strange how the careful employment of the "the ends justify the means" rule, branding a group of people as lesser beings while condoning necessary murder in the name of justice sounds awfully familiar, though.
They did negotiate in '93, so I suppose it would be natural to disagree on the proposals. Still, if you had read the drafts, you would know that the '93 account specified only that the palestinians should create some sort of self- rule - the palestinian authority(because of the thinking I mentioned about the palestinian statehood above), and that the jews were to withdraw from Gaza and the West bank. This Rabin and Arafat agreed upon, signed, and they shook hands. And things looked good, if a little nervous. But the details, I think they were to be put down no later than '96 or something (at least at first), was more problematic, and this is where an infinite amount of problems and excuses surfaced. Also, Rabin was shot in '95, if you remember. But if you care to mention some specifics about the different conditions Arafat brought with him, or what kind of talks there were, or in what circumstances, I'm sure something can be discovered by it.

About what Arafat was offered at Camp David - A state. Yes, you're technically correct. When, how and in return for what are perhaps not very interesting, I understand?

And you are confused, because the final(ish) proposal from the camp david talks was never put down in writing. So what Arafat walked out from, we know only from commentary and negotiators. Which means that unless you can actually document where you get these ridiculous ideas from, you can just as well stuff it.
Thank you. And as the article says: A proposal, halfway in the summit, some time before they broke down completily. And no unconditional "half of Jerusalem", either. So I guess your claim that the intifada was a response to this gracious gesture would be nothing more than a fantastic lie. Funny thing, that.

Yep, you're right muspell - I'm full of shit.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

How does this imply that they want to kill all jews?

"Many Neo-cons are jewish."

"A left-wing Canadian journalist, Kalle Lasn, wrote the obvious, and all hell broke loose.

Lasn, editor of the Vancouver-based journal Adbusters, had the audacity to state that many neocons are Jewish! He proceeded to list 50 prominent neocons, finding that 26 are Jewish. Moreover, he declared that the neocons have a "special affinity" for Israel and that their influence helps to tilt U.S. foreign policy toward Israel."

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_canadian.htm

Well, that explains why the Bush administration is so friendly and cosy with Sharon, doesn´t it?
But be carefull you don´t want to say it out loud, you might be accused of anti-semitism...
:confused:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

fatboy:

I disagree with many of the points in your last post, but I'm getting tired of going into the whole Israel/Palestine thing again. (at least for now...) I still think that this statement by Bush was a big mistake and will likely cause us problems down the road in the Middle East. Anyway, thanks for your responses.

Muspell:

Thanks for your input here. I asked the same question over at another forum, and was pointed to this:

http://forums.gawaher.com/show.php/a...ck/f/65/t/3535

I'm still not sure I understand this. Maybe I need to read it again more carefully...

Swampthing:

While many neocons may be Jewish, there are also many prominent Jews in America who are very much against these kinds of policies. Off the top of my head Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Friedman come to mind.

It is also important to remember that most American Jews are quite liberal. In the last election, Bush received only 19% of the Jewish vote. While he will likely do better amongst Jews in the next election, most Jews are firmly in the liberal camp.

http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PressR...s.asp?did=1032

I also seem to remember reading somewhere that Jews only make up 2% of the electorate in the USA. If you are trying to draw a parallel between the Jewish vote in America and Bush's "cosiness" with Sharon, I think you are mistaken. These policies are much more popular amongst evangelical CHristians as a group than they are amongst Jews. I think it is also important to remember that anti-zionism and anti semitism are not the same thing, and indeed many Jews can be found in the former camp.

No, the only parallel i´m drawing is between the neo-cons in Bush´s corner with "Bush´s cosiness with Sharon."
In case you didn´t read the article all the way down, the point you made about liberal jews and so on is clearly stated there. I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of influent jews backing Bush, and that it could influence Bush´s policy towards Israel. Nothing more, nothing less.
We don´t see them because they are way back in the "shadows", but they are there allright!!
A good example is Henry Kissinger, who is still pulling quite a lot of strings in the background.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.