What are/should be Israel's plans for the West Bank?

[Doug]

I have never understood what the Israelis thought would happen with the West Bank. If they had killed, or driven away, most of its Arab inhabitants, that would have made sense. Then they could just have annexed it.

Or, if they deliberately planned to use the settlements as land-for-peace bargaining chips, that would have made sense. Or at least some sense.

But the first didn't happen, and the second seems like an unlikely perspective.

So what did they think would happen with all the Palestinians? Moshe Dayan thought they would become friendly, having experienced the benefits of civilized Israeli rule. Even if that had happened, it's hard to imagine what would follow from that. Israeli citizenship?

Perhap they had nothing in particular in mind, and just hoped something would turn up.

If anyone has an answer to this, I would be grateful to hear it.

But a much more interesting question is: what should Israel do with the West Bank now? (Or, rather, that part of it which is outside their security wall -- I assume that part which is within the wall will be annexed.)

What is the point of having settlements deep inside hostile territory? I could see a few military fortresses -- that might make sense from a strategic point of view. But why expose women and children to snipers and bombs? It would seem to make as much sense as the Mormons establishing a colony in Iraq.

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to Ruby the Israels are committing Genocide, of course they are doing it in a very slow and idiotic way if they are. So I guess the plan is to kill them all someday, well according to our Jew haters anyway.

 

[Ruby]

According to Ruby the Israels are committing Genocide, of course they are doing it in a very slow and idiotic way if they are. So I guess the plan is to kill them all someday, well according to our Jew haters anyway.

Why do you always go around saying stuff like "well Ruby would say" or "well Ruby thinks"? Its a very weird thing to do and even a bit obsessive.

BTW, criticism of Israel dosent make me a "jew hater"....that old bullshit propaganda dosent work on me. There are definitely people that would love to pretend that Israel represents all Jews but thats FAR FROM THE TRUTH. Not all Jews are zionists and not all jews agree with Israel or its policies.

Yes wiping entire peoples and communities out of existence on purpose is genocide. There are literally hundreds of palestinian communities that no longer exist because they were purposely wiped out by the Israelis and the creation of Israel. Even the Israeli historians can no longer deny this nor do they even try.

Actually you would need to look to the World bank and the plans for the future for any remaining palestinians is very clear.

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/21358/The_World_Bank_s_dark_plan_for_Palestine_slave_labour

Central to World Bank proposals are the construction of massive industrial zones to be financed by the World Bank and other donors and controlled by the Israeli Occupation. Built on Palestinian land around the Wall, these industrial zones are envisaged as forming the basis of export-orientated economic development. Palestinians imprisoned by the Wall and dispossessed of land can be put to work for low wages.

The post-Wall MEFTA vision includes complete control over Palestinian movement. The report proposes high-tech military gates and checkpoints along the Wall, through which Palestinians and exports can be conveniently transported and controlled. A supplemental “transfer system” of walled roads and tunnels will allow Palestinian workers to be funneled to their jobs, while being simultaneously denied access to their land. Sweatshops will be one of very few possibilities of earning a living for Palestinians confined to disparate ghettos throughout the West Bank.

The World Bank states:
“In an improved operating environment, Palestinian entrepreneurs and foreign investors will look for well-serviced industrial land and supporting infrastructure. They will also seek a regulatory regime with a minimum of ‘red tape’ and with clear procedures for conducting business. Industrial Estates (IEs), particularly those on the border between Palestinian and Israeli territory, can fulfill this need and thereby play an important role in supporting export based growth.”

Jamal Juma’ notes that the “red tape” which the World Bank refers to can be presumed to mean trade unions, a minimum wage, good working conditions, environmental protection, and other workers’ rights that will be more flexible than the ones in the “developed” world.

The World Bank explicitly states that current wages of Palestinians are too high for the region and “compromise the international competitiveness” even though wages are only a quarter of the average in Israel. Juma’ warns that on top of a military occupation and forced expulsion, Palestinians are to be subjects of an economic colonialism.

These industrial zones will clearly benefit Israel abroad where goods “Made in Palestine” have more favorable trade conditions in international markets. IPS reporter Emad Mekay, in February 2005, revealed the World Bank’s plan to partially fund Palestinian MEFTA infrastructure with loans to Palestine. Israel is not eligible for World Bank lending because of its high per capita income, but Palestine is. Mekay quotes Terry Walz of the Washington-based Council for the National Interest, a group that monitors U.S. and international policy towards Israel and the Palestinians: “I must admit that making the Palestinians pay for the modernization of these checkpoints is an embarrassment, since they had nothing to do with the erection of the separation wall to begin with and in fact have protested it. I think the whole issue is extremely murky

The small communities left will simply be used as slave labor with no chance for a viable national state. Already the map is so occupied by Israel that a 2 state solution is already looking quite impossible...it would require the evacuation of far too many Israeli settlements and its highly doubtful thats gonna happen. Thats what the settlements are for, expansion of Israel and pushing out the palestinians. Its the good old native american styled genocide, just keep pushing and expanding and killing as you go. Palestinians can either try to leave the area or they face a hopeless situation (abject poverty, living under hostile occupation, disease etc) and even death.

Isreal isnt doing it in a very idiotic way at all...they are doing it in exactly the way that has the best chance of success. There will be no conflict soon enough because there wont be enough of them left to have a conflict WITH...again ala native american genocide solution.

 

[Shogun]

According to Ruby the Israels are committing Genocide, of course they are doing it in a very slow and idiotic way if they are. So I guess the plan is to kill them all someday, well according to our Jew haters anyway.

being strangled with a soft gloved hand produces the same result as an exploding grenade.


ooops.

"I see jew haters..."

 

[jillian]

BTW, criticism of Israel dosent make me a "jew hater"....that old bullshit propaganda dosent work on me. There are definitely people that would love to pretend that Israel represents all Jews but thats FAR FROM THE TRUTH. Not all Jews are zionists and not all jews agree with Israel or its policies.

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many jews who don't think Israel should have a safe, defensible existence as a Jewish State. What you will find is a variety of opinions as to how that should happen. I absolutely think that if one supports ideas which would leave Israel without existence while holding palestinians blameless for their circumstances, one should ask themselves why, when they have no problem with other states that were created by the UN or which won land in defensive battle. For example, are you complaining about the existence of the UAE or even Iraq or the possession by the U.S. of California and Texas?

Yes wiping entire peoples and communities out of existence on purpose is genocide. There are literally hundreds of palestinian communities that no longer exist because they were purposely wiped out by the Israelis and the creation of Israel. Even the Israeli historians can no longer deny this nor do they even try.

Wiped out? You mean when they left at the behest of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? As yourself why the palestinians don't have a state. It's because they refused to enter into any agreement which protected Israel's continued existence. Why would any people allow themselves to be obliterated?

Or is that what Jews are supposed to do?

 

[Ruby]

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many jews who don't think Israel should have a safe, defensible existence as a Jewish State. What you will find is a variety of opinions as to how that should happen. I absolutely think that if one supports ideas which would leave Israel without existence while holding palestinians blameless for their circumstances, one should ask themselves why, when they have no problem with other states that were created by the UN or which won land in defensive battle. For example, are you complaining about the existence of the UAE or even Iraq or the possession by the U.S. of California and Texas?

It wasnt some defensive battle really, it was always an aggressive battle. The mass immigration of Jews via the British mandate for the express purpose of creating Israel and dispossessing the current residents of their lands and communities was where and how the battle began. The palestinians were always the ones DEFENDING...they just couldnt possibly match the power of the british which was what gave the settlers and mass immigrating Jews their power.

I know plenty of Jews who dont agree with Israels creation or its politics. Then I know of other Jews who want Israel to remain as an existing state but would rather go back to 67 borders (some are saying go back to 48 borders) and then others who want to allow it to be a palestinian/jewish state...there are a variety of views within the jewish community around the world.

The land wasnt "won", it was invaded and it proceeded to get rid of the population so that the new "owners" could take it over as their own.

Wiped out? You mean when they left at the behest of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? As yourself why the palestinians don't have a state. It's because they refused to enter into any agreement which protected Israel's continued existence. Why would any people allow themselves to be obliterated?

Or is that what Jews are supposed to do?

No, Jews werent sopposed to come with the intention to destroy full communities of people so they could take what belonged to those people and communities. It seems to me that it was the mass emmigrating euro jews that believed that Palestinians were sopposed to accept obliteration and seems to be astonished that the Palestinians werent ready to accept such a thing. So maybe you should answer your own question...why do you expect the palestinians to accept being obliterated?

 

[Shogun]

now Jillie.. I KNOW you didn't just feign concern about Iraqi natives dealing with what they percieve as an invading force while shrugging off concern for pal natives who see the same thing...


Indeed, why is it that it is a no brainer to you when Iraq couldnt conform to the demands of ending a phantom WMD program despite western demands....
..... but the PALS must swallow the non-negotiable terms of Israel or, apparently, just want to kill jews and worship satan?


how is bushs one sided hardline stance any different from your pet issue?


I bet youd be suprised at how eager the pals would be to move on if the state of israel could muster the gonads to say, "hey, yea, we totally raped you guys off this land in order to make our buring bush legend come to pass. I know there are bitter resentment about having your face held in the sand while we favor immigrant jews and establish jewish dominance with apartheid walls and your second class status. I understand why you have reacted for 60 years. Please understand that we have a rish hisotry here too and, in the name of peace and prosparity for our progeny, I offer my apology for historic injustice and an olive branch to move on where Rabin and Arafat left off. Let's start a new day where we are equal despite ethnicity and seek peace instead of pointing figners at who to blame. A nation whose REcreation is a testement to diversity and tolorance. Where Muslim and Jew can live together, sharing a common tragedy, common hisotry and a common decision to work together as equals. As brothers where ethnicity is not a factor in justice."


try that, Jillian. You see, it's the same ole "catch more with sugar than salt" strategy.

was that too antisemtitic for this thread?

 

[jillian]

It wasnt some defensive battle really, it was always an aggressive battle. The mass immigration of Jews via the British mandate for the express purpose of creating Israel and dispossessing the current residents of their lands and communities was where and how the battle began. The palestinians were always the ones DEFENDING...they just couldnt possibly match the power of the british which was what gave the settlers and mass immigrating Jews their power.

Defending? By all the arab nations together attacking Israel? They did a pretty bad job of it then.

There was no country of Palestine. And they left their homes because they CHOSE to. My grandparents left Belarus because of pogroms. Are you saying that I have a right to my ancestral property back? Cool...

Or does that only apply to Jews?

I know plenty of Jews who dont agree with Israels creation or its politics.

Two separate issues. Any Jew who doesn't agree with Israel's creation is an idiot, quite frankly. As for the politics, different politics at different times. But then you'd actually have to believe Israel has the right to exist to understand that. Frankly, I'm amazed at the fact that anyone still raises the issue of "right to exist". Do you do so with regard to the UAE? Iraq? Saudi Arabia?

Of course not... but no anti-semitism there.

Then I know of other Jews who want Israel to remain as an existing state but would rather go back to 67 borders (some are saying go back to 48 borders)

Why should it? It won the land. People defeated in battle lose land. That's been the case throughout history. What other countries expansion by defensive battle (and immigration isn't battle and it was lawful)... do you have quarrels with? I'd wager none... but no anti-semitism there either, eh?

and then others who want to allow it to be a palestinian/jewish state...there are a variety of views within the jewish community around the world.

Any Jew who thinks it should be a palestinian/jewish state is also an idiot. The palestinians don't want that any more than the Jews do. What that position wants is another Arab state in the mid-east.

Try again...

The land wasnt "won", it was invaded and it proceeded to get rid of the population so that the new "owners" could take it over as their own.

That's an outright lie.

No, Jews werent sopposed to come with the intention to destroy full communities of people so they could take what belonged to those people and communities. It seems to me that it was the mass emmigrating euro jews that believed that Palestinians were sopposed to accept obliteration and seems to be astonished that the Palestinians werent ready to accept such a thing. So maybe you should answer your own question...why do you expect the palestinians to accept being obliterated?

Actually, Jews were already there and the new immigrants were supposed to come in and share the land. They would have done that. The Arabs refused.

One mo' time... try again.

 

[Shogun]

Native America's refused too, Jillian.

 

[Doug]

If I could divert this thread back to the orginal question -- so far, only Ruby has given an answer: she (he?) says that the Israeli plan was to plant settlements, and then to make life so difficult for the Palestinians that most of them would emigrate, leaving Israel free to annex the whole West Bank, with a few Palestinian Bantustans. In other words, the Israelis would achieve what the Europeans achieved vis-a-vis the Indians in North America, except that instead of overwhelming them with numbers by their own immigration, they would achieve the same effect by the slow forced emigration of the Palestinians. (Is that a fair paraphrase, Ruby?)

Now this would be a rational plan. A slow expulsion. (Please note: I don't say it would be a fair plan, or a nice plan, or a wicked plan. Just a rational plan.)

It seems like a plausible interpretation to me, although it may be false. Otherwise, the settlers are left sitting exposed among millions of people who hate them.

So it seems fair to ask: is it working? It didn't work in Gaza. And it doesn't seem to be working on the West Bank -- although I may be wrong. (Does anyone have any figures for Palestinian emigration from the West Bank?)

So, three questions:

(1) Is Ruby's analysis correct -- slow expulsion? Or was there some other plan? If so, what was it?

(2) Is there a slow expulsion in fact (whatever Israeli intentions may be)?

(3) If there is not a slow expulsion, is there a Plan B? What is it, if so?

 

[Ruby]

Defending? By all the arab nations together attacking Israel? They did a pretty bad job of it then.

There was no country of Palestine. And they left their homes because they CHOSE to. My grandparents left Belarus because of pogroms. Are you saying that I have a right to my ancestral property back? Cool...

It wasnt about ancestral homes, they were their CURRENT HOMES. They werent making old claims, their claims are based on the fact that they were CURRENT residents as well as going back for many generations.

There were MANY palestinians towns and villages and they were indeed a cohesive community bound by culture, language, ethnicity, shared living space and concerns etc. Just because they had been previously colonized dosent change that they were indeed a "nation" of people.

They didnt CHOOSE to leave their lands, they were FORCED out by violence...quite a difference.

Or does that only apply to Jews?

That bit where you keep trying to make it a victim thing or a anti-sematic thing is really lame and has no basis in reality or place in this discussion. The jews werent victims here, they were invaders.

Two separate issues. Any Jew who doesn't agree with Israel's creation is an idiot, quite frankly. As for the politics, different politics at different times. But then you'd actually have to believe Israel has the right to exist to understand that. Frankly, I'm amazed at the fact that anyone still raises the issue of "right to exist". Do you do so with regard to the UAE? Iraq? Saudi Arabia?

Ah so any jews that dont agree with you are idiots? Gotcha. What right did they have to RID the area of its current population? Thats genocide, why do you think jews get some special "committ a genocide for free card"?

Of course not... but no anti-semitism there.

No there isnt any anti-semitism but its a convenient sheild for you to try and hide behind on this issue. That rhetoric and tactic is old enough now that it has lost its power.

Why should it? It won the land. People defeated in battle lose land. That's been the case throughout history. What other countries expansion by defensive battle (and immigration isn't battle and it was lawful)... do you have quarrels with? I'd wager none... but no anti-semitism there either, eh?

Nope, we had slavery too...should we also uphold that because its been done? Genocide is wrong, invading people to steal resources or their land is wrong and NO it shouldnt be rewarded nor accepted. It wasnt lawful immigration, it was forced onto the palestinians by the more powerful british who get to make whatever laws they want to benefit themselves but that dosent really make it legitimate or moral. Its the political will of the community that is legitimate and they objected strenuously to no avail.

Again, nope no anti-semitism..just a consistant stance against genocide and aggressive invasions.

Any Jew who thinks it should be a palestinian/jewish state is also an idiot. The palestinians don't want that any more than the Jews do. What that position wants is another Arab state in the mid-east.

Try again...

Oh so you do support apartheid practices. Its AN ARAB region and no one forced to euro jews to mass emmigrate by force to an arab region and commit genocide against the palestinians and then complain they are surrounded by arabs!

That's an outright lie.

No thats an outright truth and the Israeli historians have gone quite public about it.

Actually, Jews were supposed to come in and share the land. They would have done that. The Arabs refused.

BZZZT try again, the zionist ideal was always to build a JEWISH STATE, not a jewish/arab state. Your revisionist history is truly jaw dropping.

One mo' time... try again.

You arent gonna get far on that lie by a loooooong shot.

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I agree with the statement that there is very little dispute nowadays amongst serious historians and rational people about the facts. There is pretty much a consensus on what happened during what you can call the foundational period, from the first Zionist settlements at the end of the 19th century 'til 1948. There, there is pretty much of a consensus. And I think Mr. Ben-Ami, in his first 50 pages, accurately renders what that consensus is.

I would just add a couple of points he makes, but just to round out the picture. He starts out by saying that the central Zionist dilemma was they wanted to create a predominantly Jewish state in an area which was overwhelmingly not Jewish, and he cites the figure, I think 1906 there were 700,000 Arabs, 55,000 Jews, and even of those 55,000 Jews, only a handful were Zionists. So that's the dilemma. How do you create a Jewish state in area which is overwhelmingly not Jewish?

Now, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, at one point, he said there are only two ways you can resolve this dilemma. One, you can create what he called the South African way, that is, create a Jewish state and disenfranchise the indigenous population. That's one way. The second way is what he calls the way of transfer. That is, you kick the indigenous population out, basically what we did in North America.

Now, as Mr. Ben-Ami correctly points out, by the 1930s the Zionist movement had reached a consensus that the way to resolve the dilemma is the way of transfer. You throw the Palestinians out. You can't do that anytime, because there are moral problems and international problems. You have to wait for the right moment. And the right moment comes in 1948. Under the cover of war, you have the opportunity to expel the indigenous population.

 

[Ruby]

If I could divert this thread back to the orginal question -- so far, only Ruby has given an answer: she (he?) says that the Israeli plan was to plant settlements, and then to make life so difficult for the Palestinians that most of them would emigrate, leaving Israel free to annex the whole West Bank, with a few Palestinian Bantustans. In other words, the Israelis would achieve what the Europeans achieved vis-a-vis the Indians in North America, except that instead of overwhelming them with numbers by their own immigration, they would achieve the same effect by the slow forced emigration of the Palestinians. (Is that a fair paraphrase, Ruby?)

Now this would be a rational plan. A slow expulsion. (Please note: I don't say it would be a fair plan, or a nice plan, or a wicked plan. Just a rational plan.)

It seems like a plausible interpretation to me, although it may be false. Otherwise, the settlers are left sitting exposed among millions of people who hate them.

So it seems fair to ask: is it working? It didn't work in Gaza. And it doesn't seem to be working on the West Bank -- although I may be wrong. (Does anyone have any figures for Palestinian emigration from the West Bank?)

So, three questions:

(1) Is Ruby's analysis correct -- slow expulsion? Or was there some other plan? If so, what was it?

(2) Is there a slow expulsion in fact (whatever Israeli intentions may be)?

(3) If there is not a slow expulsion, is there a Plan B? What is it, if so?

Yes I would say you characterized my response and take on it correctly.

I am a "she"

You also have to realize that the settlements CONTINUE to expand and continue to be built. They become too large to dismantle meaning that Palestinians may have a RIGHT to that land, but because of Israel creating those new facts on the ground, it is extremely doubtful they will get the land back. The same way that they "as refugees" have a RIGHT to return to Israel, it is doubtful they will ever be allowed to.

I understand what you mean when you say its a rational plan and I agree, it has the highest chance of success. Of course I find it disgusting and completely immoral, but it IS rational.

I think it is working and will work, already there isnt really enough left for palestinians to create a unified state. Israel has been quite good at creating facts on the ground that will aid their final success and the US invading Iraq has provided them with the perfect cover to speed it up.

 

[Shogun]

Speaking of revisionist zionism...


Did anyone bother to read the jewish quotes I posted last week?

 

[Ruby]

http://www.radioislam.org/historia/zionism/levy_morris_origsins.html

And now, the IDF archives have been opened and there we find a cable dated October 31, 1948, signed by Major General Carmel and addressed to all the division and district commanders under his command: "Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered."

Perhaps this was the right thing to do; perhaps there was no alternative. But why lie all these years? Why didn't they say: "Righteousness encountered righteousness; a victim encountered a victim; and this was the inevitable result. We had to deport them. It was either them or us." It's a lot more convincing than lying about it. The only thing is, Carmel's deportation order isn't the whole truth which Morris reveals in "Correcting a Mistake."

Apparently, Carmel's troops carried out massacres in no less than 10 (!) villages in the north of the country. They would gather the men of these villages in the square, choose a few of them, sometimes dozens, stand them up against a wall and shoot them. Because the IDF has kept the relevant document under wraps, we know nothing about these massacres. We can only hope that this nonsense, this outrageous practice of keeping things confidential, passes from the world and that 52 years on, we will eventually learn everything - where we went wrong and the evil things we did.

and

Majdal was too close to Gaza for Israel's liking. In December 1948, IDF soldiers "swept through" the town and deported some 500 of its remaining inhabitants. In 1949, Yigal Allon demanded "to transfer all the Arab inhabitants." Ben- Gurion objected. An inter-ministerial committee for the "transfer of Arabs from place to place" - yes, we had one of those as well - decided to thin out the population somewhat; another ministerial committee - "on abandoned property" - decided to settle Majdal with Jews.

From committee to committee, Majdal was "Judaized," until, with 2,500 Jewish residents, it became known as Migdal-Ad.

In December 1949, more Arabs were deported so as to vacate a few more houses - "abandoned property" - for a few more discharged soldiers. The IDF made the life of those Arab who remained a misery, hoping they'd get the message. The new commanding officer of the Southern Command, Moshe Dayan, rekindled the ideas of his predecessor, Yigal Allon.

"I hope that perhaps in the coming years, there will be another opportunity to transfer these Arabs [170,000 Israeli Arabs - G.L.] out of the Land of Israel," he said at a meeting of the Mapai faction, outlining its ideas while in uniform. Dayan backed up his words with actions: He submitted a detailed proposal for "the evacuation of the Arab inhabitants of the town of Majdal." The chief of staff agreed and Ben-Gurion authorized the plan. The government was circumvented, the Histadrut labor federation objected, and Rabin informed the residents.

The transfer began at the beginning of 1950, although the "official operation" took off in June. There were still those who spoke of dispersing the Arabs around the country; in the end, they were deported to Gaza. They were loaded onto trucks and dropped off at the border - "deliveries," as they were termed. Just to remind you again, the state already existed. The last delivery of 229 people left for Gaza on October 21; the Egyptians didn't bat an eyelid.

Back in Israel, the officials pondered over how to distribute the "abandoned" houses, most of which went to individuals who had some political clout. In 1956, Migdal-Ad changed its name to Ashkelon. To this very day, the former residents of Majdal live in the shacks and shanties of the refugee camps in Gaza.

Truth is out and more will be coming.

Isn't it best for us to know about all these things? Isn't it important for us to know about all these things, particularly now, in such difficult times? That's where it all started. That's how it all began

 

[Ruby]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/811480.html

The settler population in the West Bank grew by nearly 6 percent in 2006, more than quadruple the rate of increase a year earlier, government figures showed on Tuesday.

It seems to me that Israel is continuing to expand into the west bank and of course as they grow, they always need more roads to accomadate, more security etc and its only palestinian homes, farms etc that will be destroyed to make way for it.

Then there is this...

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/683

Nov. 20, 2006 update: More evidence of the same pattern in The Globe and Mail, where Mark MacKinnon reports from Ramallah on "Heavy-hearted Palestinians taking their chances abroad: Thousands leave the territories to escape politics and poverty—many bound for Canada." More than 10,000 Palestinians have left the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the past four months and 45,000 additional emigration requests are being evaluated by foreign states.

The Palestinian territories have never been an easy place to live, but even when violence was at its peak, most Palestinians refused to contemplate leaving, believing that would be giving Israelis what they wanted. Similar polls taken a year ago found only about 5 per cent were interested in emigrating. But now, more than ever before, Palestinians are giving up on their homeland. "I want to get out—to Canada, to Norway, to Switzerland, to Nigeria even," said Fadi el-Fahr, 24, an unemployed telecommunications engineer. "All I want is a job."

The ones left will be fodder for the world bank and numerous multi national corps (as well as Israel) as slave labor via the MEFTA agreement.

 

[Doug]

This is off-topic a bit, but that link said that many Palestinians were moving to Cuba. I wonder what they do there? They will certainly be free from the IMF, corporations, jobs that pay money, and all the other evils of capitalism, but what will they do?

 

[Shogun]

heck yea..

lets give the PALS texas!


lets take bets on how long it takes TEXANS to VIOLENTLY REACT because they feel EVICTED from their homeland...


I wonder how many pals would swim back to israel just to kill a jew.

 

[doniston]

now Jillie.. I KNOW you didn't just feign concern about Iraqi natives dealing with what they percieve as an invading force while shrugging off concern for pal natives who see the same thing...


Indeed, why is it that it is a no brainer to you when Iraq couldnt conform to the demands of ending a phantom WMD program despite western demands....
..... but the PALS must swallow the non-negotiable terms of Israel or, apparently, just want to kill jews and worship satan?


how is bushs one sided hardline stance any different from your pet issue?


I bet youd be suprised at how eager the pals would be to move on if the state of israel could muster the gonads to say, "hey, yea, we totally raped you guys off this land in order to make our buring bush legend come to pass. I know there are bitter resentment about having your face held in the sand while we favor immigrant jews and establish jewish dominance with apartheid walls and your second class status. I understand why you have reacted for 60 years. Please understand that we have a rish hisotry here too and, in the name of peace and prosparity for our progeny, I offer my apology for historic injustice and an olive branch to move on where Rabin and Arafat left off. Let's start a new day where we are equal despite ethnicity and seek peace instead of pointing figners at who to blame. A nation whose REcreation is a testement to diversity and tolorance. Where Muslim and Jew can live together, sharing a common tragedy, common hisotry and a common decision to work together as equals. As brothers where ethnicity is not a factor in justice."


try that, Jillian. You see, it's the same ole "catch more with sugar than salt" strategy.

was that too antisemtitic for this thread?

It was well stated, and I agree.

 

[Cynic-American]

sure way to make enemies- say that Israel should fight their own battles.

hear the brainwashed crowd booooo,hisssssssss.

 

[dilloduck]

heck yea..

lets give the PALS texas!


lets take bets on how long it takes TEXANS to VIOLENTLY REACT because they feel EVICTED from their homeland...


I wonder how many pals would swim back to israel just to kill a jew.

Bring em on--Mexico has taken us over anyway.