This is just an observation of mine. It seems that to get elected as a leader in Israel or Palestine, it never hurts to be a hard-liner. If you're uncompromising in your public views regarding the "other" side, the average voter will probably like you and be more likely to vote for you. After all, most people have had their families or friends affected one way or another by the long-running conflict. Witness, for instance, the rise to power of Ariel Sharon, or the likely success of Hamas in the upcoming Palestinian elections (if they go ahead). But something strange happens to Israeli and Palestinian leaders once they are in power, with full access to the big picture of the conflict. They tend to drift away from their hard line views, towards a more moderate position, where they seek some reconciliation or compromise with the "other" side. Sharon has done it - forming his new, centrist party. Arafat did it too. When this happens, almost inevitably a new radical leader pops up and Israel/Palestine is back to the usual warfare for the next 10 years. Why do the leaders become more interested in compromise? Because they eventually realise that all-out warfare is counterproductive. They come to realise that the problems in the middle east will never be sorted out by fighting. A diplomatic solution is the only one which has any chance of succeeding, ultimately. But the average person on the street doesn't realise that - especially the young. You'll find the most radical Palestinians and Israelis are always the young 18-25 year old men, with their guns and their prejudices. They are the ones out in the streets stirring up trouble. Is there any way to ever break the cycle of violence in Israeli/Gaza/West Bank? Or are we destined for a never-ending conflict, as each new generation vows that the "other" side will pay for past crimes?
No. Yes. And it's not just in the Middle East, it's the same/similar way in almost every area of the world where there are humans. We are a violent, greedy, vengeful species ...yet the youth of every generation, of almost every race/culture/nationality, keep asking the same question. And yet it's those very youths who grow up to be and do the very things that they once complained about. Continuing the cycle of violence, hatred, greed, bigotry, etc. Strange, huh? Baron Max
i think that Sharon was shocked initially when he saw that US support for Israeli policy does in fact have some limit, however stratospheric that limit may be. In addition to this, people have a tendency to see his endorsement of the Gaza pullout as a move toward the center and an amelioration of a large part of the conflict over land and settlements, i do not. i think that Sharon makes a shrewd political move by pulling out of Gaza and allowing the settlers to get so up in arms about it, thereby demonstrating that the Israeli people will not tolerate any further pullout, and that the suggestion of it is political suicide for any other would-be Israeli premier. in this way he assures that the settlements in the West Bank will never be vacated and can use the Gaza pullout as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US involving which areas will become part of a "palestinian state" and which ones Israel will retain. furthermore, the high-profile nature of a "generous" move like the Gaza pullout ensures that Israel can essentially get away with smaller escalations of conflict that could bait the Palestinians into action that will make them appear as though they are the ones who disrespect the peace process despite the "earnest efforts" of Israel to appease them. his centrist Kedema party is inappropriately named, it is merely a less-radical version of Likud that is simply not so deluded as to realize that Israel has much to gain from a peace process that so openly favors their interests. in fact, a crucial part of the plan for the creation of a Palestinian state says clearly that any Israeli population centers will remain under Israeli control. this to me seems like an incentive to trade the settlements in Gaza for the ability to build up a population center in the West Bank and hold onto it forever despite its illegality. Arafat on the other hand never really moved to the center at all, he went from being an out-and-out terrorist/extremist, to being an influential political leader, but he did little or nothing to curb the violence of groups like hezbollah and hamas. certainly once in a while he would have people from one of those groups or the other arrested, but he would inevitably allow them to be released with some kind of slap on the wrist, or they would just escape on their own with his tacit approval. he went from being a terrorist himself to someone who just gladly sponsered terrorist activity to one extent or another. i disagree with this a little. the youngsters on the streets are the most vocal about their dissatisfaction and willingness to wipe their enemies off the map, but they have little power to do so. there are some hard-line zionists in the Israeli government as well as an entire population of Israelis who are willing to live in new homes built on top of Palestinian ones that were destroyed by their government. extremist policy towards Palestine could not exist without these people, but could exist wihtout the kids in the street who hate palestine because of retaliatory attacks by terrorists. Palestinians are the same way, although undoubtedly many suicide bombers are in the age range that you have stated, they are being motivated and trained by other, older members of the population, such as radical Islamist Clerics or veteran palestinian fighters. the young are always vocal and obvious in their political associations. they eventually learn to exert a far more subtle and insidious type of influence over policy and events if they seek to make a real change. i dont know. i think that it is crucial that the US visibly diminish its support for israeli policy toward the palestinians and at least make some attempt to establish a peace process that is fair. if that cannot be done, i think that probably the only way to end the conflict is for one of them to destroy the other.
The only solution to the Israel/Palestinian situation is this , Palestinians must receive equal citizenship with Israeli's this will allow all Palestinian's to return to Israel , to allow the Palestinians to live where they wish within the borders of present day Israel . Secondly this will allow the Palestinians to form political parties alongside Israeli parties and to allow Palestinians and Israelis to vote in open multi-party , proportionally elected representative elections . This way it will allow this situation in Israel to be settled by democratic means by the majority ! whatever side it be . All that has to be done to settle this conflict , is for the USA to stop financing Israel , cut off its aid , and thats it , it is as simple as that . It worked in South Africa , the long held white fear that Blacks would eat them alive if ever they got power turned out to be paranoia . To this day some 15 years on South Africa is at peace the same situation will work in Israel/Palestine . I have a question for you which side should make the effort to approach the other side first ?
One of the points of this thread is that leaders on both sides seem to regularly "approach" each other. However, it seems to be very difficult for them to control the competing, more radical elements in their own constituencies. Every time the leaders try to make a move towards peace, some fanatical group doubles its efforts to derail the peace process.
while in Israel there is now a centrist party, which is an alternative to the traditional Labour (left) and Likud (right) parties. what happened in "Palestine" was a weak copycat attempt at proper political process. what in reality happened was Fatah further split up into little splinters, which weakened it even more. while Hamas, which looks like the only organized group there, has gained strength in the polls and "elections". this doesn't mean much tho, because nobody has real power there, except those with the guns. and Abbas is not the one. he and his "government" are more like a ceremonial structure that does lip service to CNN and other Western media. some are not recognized by PLO leaders in "exile", and those who are recognized have no authority over their "security force". and those "security forces" who actually do listen to Abbas, get their ass kicked. so i don't know ehre u got your assessment from, James
There is no difficulty involved in controlling any of these groups , the Israeli intelligence/security service clearly knows who are the extremists within the Jewish community are and likewise the are aware of who are the extremists within the Palestinian community . You only have to look to the peace process in Ireland or what preceded in South Africa during the transition . These groups are easily controlled and reigned in , this comes from years of domestic police intelligence work building up intelligence and contacts through informants . If peace comes to the Holy land it will be at the expense of the Jews and at the advantage of the Palestinians as this means the right of return for the Palestinians . Thats what provoked Sharons visit to the Temple On the Mount which provoked the 2nd intifada . That was after in response to serious global discussion about Palestinians returning from camps back to Israel . As long as there is discord such nations based on ideological rather than democratic foundations flourish .
I disagree with the premise of the thread. New leaders turn from hardline to peace? Exactly who are you talking about? Rabin was assasinated by Israelis to stop peace. Sharon never made a peaceful move in his life. I think you are repeating his eulogies. That just happen to smear over what a demon the man was. What I think is that a few months ago, he found out he was going to die. It was his fear of death, and finally meeting Satan, that made him drop Likud, start a new moderate party and all that other stuff. He wasn't about peace. He was dying and he was scared shitless of being judged as the lying murderer he is. If you are talking about the Palestinians, Abbas is a collaborater if not an Israeli Agent. The Israelis assasinate any real leaders. Only a pet would be allowed a public face of leadership. That is why none of the Palestinians listen to Abbas. They know a Israeli Collaborator when they see one.
Happeh: Sharon's unilateral pull-out from Gaza is a move towards peace - of a kind. Peace by separation. It seems Sharon figured that he would just wall off Israel from the Palestinian territories. Many observers think he had/has the same plans for the West Bank, but he knew he could never convince the Likud party to back that. Hence the new party. Obviously, I disagree with your assessment that he left Likud because of his fear of death. Maybe you need to study his politics in a little more depth.
"Peace by separation"= apartheid. Not peace. Sharon's dramatic shift on Israeli colonies was still a position of extreme ethnic bias. Arabs and Jews must eventually coexist in the very same lands, and within the very same political structures- just as Jews and Europeans, or any groups that live together in the world. Ethnic cleansing will always perpetuate the hate and the suffering until it is abolished. The story of Israel has been in essence a story of forced ethnic separation. As Brian and others have pointed out, unequivocal US support for zionism has been the leading enabler of this ongoing disaster.
And maybe you should stop playing polite and talk reality. Sharon found out he was going to die. When he found this out, he set out on a very purposeful plan. He was going to be dead, he wasn't going to have to pay for anything he did. Sharon stole as much Palestinian land as possible before he died thru construction of the wall. Sharon ordered the USA to attack Iraq so that Saddam Hussein would be gone before Sharon died. So that Israel would not have to deal with Iraq without the murderere Sharon in charge of the country. Sharon ordered the assasination of the entire leadership of the Palestinians. so there would be no one left after Sharon was dead. Arafat was assasinated to ensure he died before Arafat. If Sharon died before Arafat, it would be taken as victory by the Arab world. Therefore, Arafat was first isolated so no one would see what was happening, then he was posioned. After giving up Gaza, Sharon then began to assasinate any remaining leaders in Palestine. Islamic Jihad, Hamas etc. Any person showing leadership ability was assasinatied. It is called culling. It is called breeding your animals. If you have aggressive dogs, you kill them. If you have aggressive people you kill them so all that is left is the passive slaves. Go ahead and protect a man that kills human beings like he is a dog breeder trying to breed passive dogs. Ariel Sharon was a dipped in blood murderer who has been telling lies for 30 years. The man is responsible for more suffering than Hitler. Hitler was around for 5 years. Sharon has been killing people for 30 years in front of the entire world as a witness and no on did a thing.
Happeh: I suppose you have about as much evidence for those claims as you have for masterbation causing blindness.
