Pac,
I don't think I misrepresented what you said. I just took what you said
and followed the logic. This was my thought process:

Pac said:
I have, like many Americans, felt we should not support
Israel in any shape or form unless they recall the methods they used
to gain a homeland, many many years ago, and agree to give the
Palestinians sovereignty (recognize a Pal. state with hard Pal.

This does not say that Israel has no right to exist, but following the
logic, if you believe that the way Israel came to be is illigitimate, then
that would also mean that you believe that Israel is illigitimate. If
that's not what you meant, then please shed some light on what you did mean
by this expression.

A history lesson, albeit from Israel's point of view:

Modern Israel came to be after millenia of sustained presence in the region.
Most of the Jews were spread out all over the world in the Diaspora, but
especially to Arab, North African, European, and North American countries.
However, a small group of Jews always stayed in the region. In the late
19th century, in response to ever increasing hostility toward the Jews in
Europe, Theodore Hertzl's Zionist (Jewish nationalist) movement began. Jews
from the Diaspora began joining their fellow Jews in the region under the
Ottoman Empire rule, buying land and settling down. Do you object to this
so far?

Then, after WWI, the British controlled what is now Israel and Jordan. The
land east of the Jordan river was completely forbidden to Jews and became an
Arab state. The Jews were severely restricted from entering the region, but
many tried anyway. Could you blame them? European countries were hostile
to Jews to the point of Genocide, no Arab country would take them, and even
the United States was not terribly welcoming. Ever hear of the ship Exodus?
Can you fault the future Israelis here?

Now, the moment of truth. May 1948. The British withdraw from their
mandate of the region, and the United Nations votes to partition the land
into two - a Jewish state called Israel and an Arab state called Jordan. Do
you think this process was flawed? How else could this have been resolved?

The next day, rejecting the partition plan, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, et al. attacked Israel in an attempt to push the Jews into the
sea. I am not being melodramatic here - this was their stated goal. So,
there was a war, Israel survived, the Arab armies were defeated, and arabs
that lived in newly won Israeli territories either fled to Arab states or
stayed and became Israeli citizens. The ones that stayed in Israel now
represent 20% of Israelis and are a powerful political force in the Israeli
parliment.

About 750,000 arabs fled Israel into Arab countries. Conversely, about
600,000 Jews fled Arab countries into Israel. History was not kind to
either of these groups, but the difference is that the Jews were absorbed
and welcomed into Israel, while the palestinians inexclicably are still
living in refugee camps (poor cities, really) in the surrounding Arab
countries.

So I ask again, what is illegitimate about this? How else could this
conflict have come to a resolution?

Fast forward fifty years, 4 wars, and one occupation later. The
Palestinians have grown a very strong national identity (which they didn't
really have in 1948 - they just considered themselves Arab), and they want
their own state and will not be satisfied with Jordanian, Egyptian,
Lebanese, or Syrian citizenship. That's understandable. That's what the
peace process is all about. Israel has always welcomed overtures of peace,
it's just that no peace overtures were made at all until Oslo. Even then,
Israel was dealing with Yasser Arafat, a noted terrorist with a lot of blood
directly on his hands, yet Israel negotiated with him anyway. He ostensibly
made the transition to statesman, so his record was set aside.

The Oslo process, after much hand wringing, hit its pinnacle with the 2000
plan for a Palestinian state. This was rejected by Arafat and NO
COUNTEROFFER was made. I don't know of a faster way to kill hopes of peace.
He returned to his office in Rammallah, and apparently has decided that the
Palestinians can gain more through a continuation of terror. He has said so
very recently, in so many words. He has said so with the propoganda
broadcast by the Palestinian Authority Television, which he controls. LOTS
of music videos about suicide bombers there.

So we are at the current impasse. The United States and Israel are united
on at least one point - whatever the eventual agreement for a Palestinian
state will be, its terms cannot be dictated by terrorists. Period. This is
another reason that the United States has been so supportive of Israel.

Pac, I have to point out that I do equate cutting off support to Israel as
damning Israel. If you didn't think that this would be the case and it was
not your intention to imply that noncompliance with America's terms should
result in letting Israel be pushed into the sea, then I don't take any
offense.

However, please realize that there are more issues than the Palestinian
issue. Don't forget that Israel is surrounded by powerful neighbors with
strong armies. When you said "if Israel rejects [ the U.S. Palestinan peace
resolution ] this confirms to me they are the most unreasonable agitator in
the region, then let them defend themselves." that implied that you are
willing to leave Israel fending for itself among its hostile neighbors.
Remember, weakness spells bloodshed in the middle east. I don't think you
want that. I don't think anyone wants that.

Also, which side rejected the U.S. backed proposal in 2000? Did that side
prove to you with this action that they are the "most unreasonable agitator
in the region" and that we should let them defend themselves?

So once again I think we are off topic, but hopefully this was profitable to
follow for people interested in the region and in peace. It does help to go
through the arguments in order to understand the other side.


Blue Skies,

-Aviv





"pac plyer" wrote in message
om...
Aviv,

No need to misrepresent what I posted. No one said anything about not
recognizing Israel's right to exist. No one said
anything close to "kill em all." You seem to be making the assumption
that cutting off support to Israel is the same as
"damning them". I made no such comment. I do not wish to commence
"damning" anyone. I do however, feel dictating a
resolution is in fact a reasonable role for the U.S. to play. If
Israel rejects it, this confirms to me they are the most unreasonable
agitator in the region, then let them defend themselves.