When at a loss, escalate

[sushi]

"Unable to repress the Palestinian struggle for liberation, Israel is now trying to transform it into a regional war, for which its army is better equipped. That spells more disaster for the whole of the Middle East, including Israel."

"There is no evidence that Israel's policy of assassination, even beyond the inconvenience of being a form of state terrorism, is achieving a reduction in Palestinian violence. On the contrary, the only success that can be reasonably attributed to this policy is Israel's repeated success in sabotaging cease-fires and insuring a continuation of the intifada."

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1608

[sushi]

1. "What more is needed

to show that Israel's 'defense' policies are nothing but international terrorism?...But Israel's madness has a context, too. Within the world view of Israel's military junta, every problem has a military solution, and every problem that doesn't seem to have a military solution can be transformed into one that does."

..."The background for the decision to attack Syria is, therefore, Sharon's beleaguered position and absence of options...
The message is that Israel will react to international pressure by causing greater instability throughout the Middle East."

---

All of this is not going to stop the Palestinians wanting their own state, and fighting for it. What a waste of lives and time, but very good for weapons manufacturers.

[bemildred]

2. Similar piece in Haaretz:

The government's response to the new peace
initiative, attributed to Yossi Beilin and Yasser
Abed Rabbo, and to the terrible bombing at
Haifa's Maxim restaurant, prove the validity of the
expression that whoever holds the hammer
tends to see every problem as a nail.

The proposed plan, details of
which have not yet been made
public, resulted in an
instinctive response by Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon: he
attacked it and accused the
Israeli initiators of
cooperating with the
Palestinian enemy. In other
words, Sharon rejects even the
attempt to present the public with an
alternative to his policy toward the
Palestinians. The prime minister automatically
rejects a diplomatic solution and thus
manifests his view that the only way of ending
the conflict is through military victory.

Sharon is realizing his approach from the
beginning of his tenure. He has led a forceful,
intense approach against the murderous
Palestinian terrorism, by far more powerful and
extensive than his predecessor, Ehud Barak. He
has enjoyed broad public support for his
policy: it is viewed as beyond reproach and as
the proper response to Palestinian violence.
Sharon's stance has led to the reoccupation of
the West Bank cities, to curfews and sieges, to
air attacks and assassinations, whose legality
is questionable and whose implementation
raises ethical objections. The Israel Defense Forces
has made use of nearly every form of violence
in order to block Palestinian terrorism, but
the prime minister's policy has failed if we
judge its results: Sharon has been in power for
nearly three years and the situation in the
country, in general, and in the confrontation
with the Palestinians, in particular, is worse
than when he was elected.

Haaretz

[rini]

3. What would you suggest?

Israel roll over and die? The sad and frightening truth is the PA does not want peace. 1948, 1967, 1973, 2000, each and every time they have turned their backs on negociation, compromise, and peace.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
—Albert Einstein

[Darranar]

4. Let's look at your junk...

1948: Not the PA. The PA didn't even exist then.

1967: Who attacked first? Who mantained the occupation? And the PA didn't exist then, either.

1973: The governments of Egypt and Syria attacked, not the PA> And the PA didn't exist.

2000: Barak's "generous offer" was a fraud. He eventually left negotiations to prepare for the election.

[rini]

6. an answer to your posting

1948: Israel invaded by ALL Arab countries. At this point in time there were no Palestinians, just Israelis and Arabs. Thank you for making a very important point.

1967: The Arab were massed at the borders, there were more and more armed atacks from all sides. Yes, Israel did a pre-emptive strike. By the end of the war, Israel had captured enough territory to more than triple the size of the area it controlled, from 8,000 to 26,000 square miles. The victory enabled Israel to unify Jerusalem. Israeli forces had also captured the Sinai, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Israel fully expected to negotiate a peace agreement that would involve some territorial compromise. Almost immediately after the war, Israel's leaders expressed their willingness to negotiate a return of at least some of the territories. Israel subsequently returned all of the Sinai to Egypt, territory claimed by Jordan was returned to the Hashemite Kingdom, and nearly all of the Gaza Strip and more than 40 percent of the West Bank was given to the Palestinians to establish the Palestinian Authority.
Approximately 93 percent of the territories won in the defensive war have been given by Israel to its Arab neighbors.
1973: On October 6, 1973 — Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar — Egypt and Syria opened a coordinated surprise attack against Israel. At least nine Arab states, including four non-Middle Eastern nations, actively aided the Egyptian-Syrian war effort.

2000 Who walked out, Arafat, no effort to talk, compromise or come to any sort of agreement, he turned down 98% of what he had asked for.....

[Darranar]

7. Junk...

1967: What territory was given back to the Jordanians? No land is under PA control today, nor has any land ever beeen under complete PA control.

1973: So?

2000: Barak walked out. Arafat simply refused Barak's bantustan-style offer.

[rini]

8. excuses excuses

n/t

[Darranar]

10. Excuses?

You're the one who's excusing Israel's occupation.

You're the one who's excusing Israel's oppression.

You're the one who's excusing Israel's aggressiveness.

You're the one who's excusing Sharon's brutal policies.

[bluesoul]

11. Facts don't matter when they go against them

Alas Darranar, i really see no sense. They will never admit or see anything wrong with it. No matter what you say or how much facts you present.

[bemildred]

5. I don't believe I suggested anything.

If you are asking me what I think should be done to
make the future better than the past and present, that is
a long conversation and I don't believe I have the expertise.
It is much easier to point out that the current policies suck,
so I stick to that. We all do what we are good at.

Nice sig.

[rini]

9. I like it too

seems the older I get the more it rings true.:-(

[sushi]

12. I think

that you avoid, ignore, what you, I suspect, know to be the only answer, and that is negotiating a peace. The Israeli PM is obviously trying to avoid negotiations, stalling for as long as possible. While the leaders are stubborn the people on both sides suffer.

Negotiations have failed in the past, but they should, must, start talking again and keep talking, because there is no other way. Meanwhile it's getting closer to the day the Arabs outnumber the Jews!
What do you think Israel should do then? Drop a nuclear bomb so close to home?

I agree with Albert Einstein. I saved something else he's said. I'll post it as soon as I find it.