Arafat welcomes talks

Meanwhile...

Israel withdrawl

Is it possible or is it just a waste of time?

Peace is never a waste of time.

Darcaine

Maybe i should have re-state that:

Is it just Arafat or Israel wasting time (in other words, are they just playing games)

I believe that the Palestinian people will not decide for peace, yes they might ask for a ceas fire but they never go long. When one incident occurs peace will be canceled. And even when they try and sit down and when their ready for peace a terrorist will bomb again

Any day that doesn't end with suicide bomber kills three or Palestinian child killed during exhange of gunfire is a great day in Israel these days.

I don't think there will be peace until the Isrealis move to New Mexico or 20 years after the Palestinians stop killing Jews on a regular basis.

I would just like to point out that shin bet (Israel's internal security service) has in the past helped out the terrorist group Hamas ( http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID= ) and could actually be in control of them (that much is speculation) Mossad, Israel's intelligence service has been caught very recently trying to set up "al-qaeda" cells ( http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?...ID=5743&TagID=7 - source is the AFP- l'Agence France-Presse) to discredit the Palestinian people (take into account the 200 or so Israeli spy ring that was broken up around 9/11, and one starts to wonder, how many "Al qaeda cells" are really Mossad cells?)

anyway, back on topic: Sharon does not want peace (no Israeli leader really has) what is likely to happen if they do start peace talks is this: Israel will demand Arafat stop ALL terrorists from operating, among other unrealistic demands, the demands will be nearly unrealizable the Palestinians will say they want it some other way, the Israelis will refuse and demand the original terms only, the Palestinians will say "F-that, these goals you set are unrealistic" (or something like that) the pals will walk away from the table and Israel will once again play the victim and say the same thing again (we were willing to talk peace, but THEY walked away) and hostilities will once again resume, and Israel will annex more land. this is how almost all of the peace talks have gone. Sharon doesn't want peace, never has.

and eeyore is correct, any day that doesn't end with Israeli civilians killed or Palestinian children killed in "cross-fire" is a decent day.

Neither does Arafat. He can't control his Hamas dogs.

actually, hamas is against the PA, and currently there is a major rift in hamas according to Israel's internal security service, shin bet. hamas is not, nor was ever under control of th PA. (shin bet funded them early on hoping to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative) and how do you know arafat does not actually want peace? do you know him personally and actually speak to him? yeah I'm sure he likes being stuck in his office with out running water, or electricity when israel makes their incursions for more palestinian land. maybe he doesn't want peace, I don't know him, and haven't spoke to him.

and let's not forget what set off the current intifada: The violence was sparked after Likud leader Ariel Sharon visited the area around Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 28 September accompanied by 1000 armed policemen, including riot forces carrying clubs and plastic shields. Although Sharon had previously visited the Haram Al Sherif (known as the Temple Mount to Jews) without incident, the sizeable police presence and the timing of the visit hit a sensitive nerve with many Palestinians, coming as it did on the heels of failed talks over the ultimate fate of Jerusalem. ( http://www.cairotimes.com/content/archiv04.../jerusalem.html )

also: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/puppet_on_...n_a_string.html (yes I know a "conspiracy theorist" website, so take it with a grain of salt)

Quite a condescending contradiction, eh?

And the Palestinians get offended that Sharon had police protection on his visit to the Temple Mount, so they start an uprising complete with those ever so brave suicide bombers?

I would agree that Sharon does not want peace, at least with any concessions, but to claim Saint Arafat does is laughable.

BTW, I like the spin:

10 armed police men are protection (100 is pushing it) 1000 is a military force. I won't claim that Arafat is a saint. he probably isn't the best choice for peace, but it's kinda hard for the palestinians to change leaders when they can't even leave their homes, or risk getting shot!

I'm not too sure what you meant by spin. I believe that, anyday that palestinians don't kill innocent civilians and the idf doesn't kill innocent palestinans is a good day. less of my taxdollars spent.

Indeed, stats show more Isrealis are killed in car accidents than by terrorism. I'm sure the same could be said about Palestineans.

--cheers

I also think america should FORCE peace no matter the cost. After iraq we should make the governemnt have peace with out "peace keepers" troops

Are you advocating the long term occupation of large sections of the Middle each by the American military?

There can not be peace in Israel for one very simple reason. Israel is a democracy.

IF the Israeli's signed a regular peace deal which allowed the Palestinians to live in Israel as citizens, sooner or later the Palestinians, who have a far higher rate of birth than the Israeli's would out number the Jews.

The Israeli leadership knows this and that is why they are trying to gradually force the Palestinians out. They know that if the Palestinians ever got a viable peace deal working, a time would come when a Muslim politician would have the popular support to become prime minister of Israel.

However if in the long run the core disputes can be resolved and the two religious/ethnic communities can be reconciled, then maybe the area can move from destructive ethnic nationalism to a civic nationalism that encompasses a body of values that act as an umbrella above these differences.

This is a long way off. Uganda and South Africa are countries trying to move forward in divided societies with a civic nationalism.

It works here. (In the USA) It needs to start working elsewhere so ethnic/religious fighting can become less common.

Thats exactly what i am advocating...I f peace cant be sustainted withut military action then peace can't come

Peace was pretty close at one point; there is just one (or two) major problems in Israel. SOME (not all) of the Palestinians hate the Israeli's, and SOME (not all) of the Israeli's hate the Palestinians, and it is easy to understand both sides. Within 5 minutes of being granted a homeland the Israeli's were beseiged by the entire Arab world and had to repell to further invasions after the war of Independence. During the process the Palestinians were eventually ghetto-ized and have been living in harsh circumstances, although comparable to a country like Syria or Egypt with limited mobility. There is only one REAL avenue for peace, somebody (either Israel or the Palestinians) have to stop the killings COMPLETELY.

It's funny, I read in the papers that a 13-year old boy was killed in a crossfire with Israeli troops. If the Palestinians cared so much about their children they wouldn't be encouraging them to throw rocks and firebombs. Make no mistake, 90% of the Palestinian casualties are combatants of some sort or another. Does that excuse their deaths, no. I abhore killing. But at the same time Israel can't just sit back and let the Palenstinians march in and slaughter civilian populations.

I don't see how you can equate military occupation and the subjugation of subject populations through force with 'peace'.

Or did the 40 year occupation of Eastern Europe by the USSR also serve to create 'peace' in that region?

Peace at gunpoint is a paradox, an oxymoron, and a contradiction interms. It is also very often the excuse used by imperialistic powers to justify their own expansionist policies.

Remember the Pax Romana? Or the Pax Britanicca? What's next? The Pax Americana?

But Palestine is expected to sit back and let the Israelis march in and forcibly subjugate, oppress, and slaughter civilians of their own?

The West condemns Palestinian 'terroism', but supports Israeli 'police action'. Surely the only difference is that the Palestinians are not allowed to have an army.

JonBon: I think you misunderstood Juber's post, it seem's he meant to say.
"If peace can't be sustainted without military action then peace can't come "

Jonbon have another gander at my post. I am against the police action in the Palestinian territories. More than anything it bewilders me that whenever the Israeli's withdraw fresh attacks are launched.