crumbbum

Ok, I don't even know where to start- you mock Israel's need for depth and equate it with palestinians wanting a seaport. But how much do you about the history there? Israel needs depth so the country doesnt get destroyed in a war. When Israelis surrendered in past wars they were frequently massacred, with their bodies mutilated. The arabs broadcast that they would push the jews into the sea. The country needs strategic depth to live, not because it's "nice", as you equate it. That is ridiculous. No one is trying to exterminate the palestinians. Israel may not be keen on giving them a state, I really can't see how that land can hold 2 states without resulting in war, and that's beyond the ridicuousness of rewarding years upon years of terrorism, the brutality of which is unparalleled. Second, Israel has already said that they will remove some settlements, once the terror stops. This is perfectly reasonable, no one should the the palestinians a damn thing if they aren't running a civilized society. And again, the land was annexed from Jordan, right- it wasn't "palestinian land". Many of the so called settlements have been there since long before 1948, and some since time immemorial, like Hebron, etc. Oh, and I don't consider the land Jordanian, Jordan's occupation of the West bank (which was the name under Jordanian occupation, the western bank of the jordan river- the traditional names of the regions are Judea and Samaria) was illegal. By international law Israel's annexation was NOT illegal. The land wasn't stolen from anyone, Jordan had no right to be there, and it wasn't palestinian arab land at all. There were arabs there, and jews there. Then you say we are getting different impressions of the situation with regards to settlement growth- but that's a fact, they have stopped building new settlements in deference to the US. That's been the case for some time. But anyway, the settlements again serve a defensive purpose, and why shouldn't they build them when they are still under attack? Oh, and in the last part about Sharon and Arafat, recognition from the US has nothing to do with it. Arafat spent his life killing innocent people. Sharon spent his defending his country from those that would destroy it and massacre its inhabitants. There can be no equivocation made. In case you forget the arabs have made war on Israel many times, and the country is perpetually threatened, they have never known peace. You probably are one of the people that states simplistic analyses like "why can't they stop killing each other? Sharon doesn't want peace", etc. Who do you think wants peace more? Who stands to gain more from it? Who is waging war on who? There has been a terror war against Israel for the last 2 years. They are surrounded by enemies. You think Israel is the obstacle to peace? Why? No one needs peace more than Israel. And almost all Israelis are willing to make concessions for peace. Sharon, Barak, left and right, they all want the same thing, they just have different ideas of how to achieve it. You DON'T get peace by rewarding terrorism or by capitulating under attack by your enemies, who want to destroy you and see that as weakness. Sharon wants peace, he just doesn't want a false peace. Another question, why didn't any arab countries absorb the palestinians in 1948? In every other war in history when refugees were created, there was a population exchange, India/Pakistan, Germany/Czechoslovakia, etc. Did you know that slightly more jewish refugees were created in 48 than arabs? They were expelled from arab countries amidst pogroms and all their belongings and property stolen. Israel took them in, as any civilized country would do. The palestinian arabs are kept in squallid refugee camps, for 55 years now, as a political weapon wielded by despotic arab rulers, who use the issue to blame Israel for all the problems in the Arab world and divert anger away from themselves, while they take in Billions as their population starves. Learn your history. Why exactly do you think the Palestinian arabs deserve a state? What about the Tibetan Buddhists? What about the Kurds? There are enough people in the world that have suffered far more, and have infinitely less blood on their hands, that could use a state. This one is all politics. Oh, and you say they have no rights to the land based on history. But you don't realize that jews have lived there all along. They never left. They were a minority there until the mid 1800s, but there was always a presence there, in many places. If the arabs love the land so much, why was there no country there before? Why were there only a few hundred thousand migrants in the whole place? Why was the land desolate? You don't realize, but almost all the arabs who were there in 1948 came as a result of jewish settlement, looking for work. The jews started farming and built hospitals, and the arabs benefited greatly. As far as the refugees, 67% left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. They were encouraged to by the arab leaders, promised they could return once the jews were all killed. Did you know that to be a palestinian, one simply has to be related to some arab that lived in the land pre-48 for 2 years? That is the UN definition. You don't know what you're talking about with this, and I suggest you learn your history before making these kinds of statements in public.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.