Reply #16: Since you say that some Palestinians are trying to be realistic . . .

[Jack Rabbit]

. . . you might want to distinguish them from the Palestinians you are always talking about. By the way, just who are the Palestinians you are always talking about?

Second, it does the Israelis no good to continue to give the Palestinians (as in rank-and-file people, like you and me) valid grievances. The occupation was an occupation until 1977, when Begin said the West Bank and Gaza were "liberated" land. It was liberated, we must presume, from the people who had lived there for centuries. The Likud program ever since has been to treat the occupied territories as part of Israel without regard to the desires or national aspirations of the people who live there.

Of course, Begin's 1977 assertion was ludicrous then and remains so today. Nevertheless, that is the rationale for Israel's settlement policy. That policy needs to be stopped and reversed.

Suggesting that is quite different from saying the occupation must end. All it suggests is that the occupation become about Israel's security, not about a desire for territorial expansion.

Resolution 242 emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". The agreement between Bush and Sharon this week violated the spirit and the letter of Resolution 242. Begin's 1977 declaration was also a violation of Resolution 242. Every Israeli settlement built on occupied land has been a violation of Resolution 242 and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The end and reversal of the settlement policy would be Israel's signal to the Palestinian people that she is prepared to return land for peace. The IDF would remain behind to round up terrorists and would not leave until a credible Palestinian government agrees to a non-aggression pact with Israel.

Once the settlements are gone, time will be on the side of the peace makers of both nations.