What should Israel have done?

[Nederland]

What should Israel have done in response to the kidnapping of their soldiers?

The poll answers are biased I know, but I'm seriously wondering what all you anti-Israel folks think they should have done in response. I'd like to know. Oh, answers like "Israel should never have been created" will be laughed at. The question is what do you think Israel should have done differently in the last month, not, what should reality look like in your idealistic fantasy world.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I will need to look up documentation,

but I believe that in the past hostages have been freed via negotiations.

[Nederland]

2. And how did that work out for them?

Did it result in a lasting, sustainable peace? Just asking... :eyes:

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. Before war diplomacy.

After war diplomacy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. The hostages went home to their families.

And there was peace for another day. Frankly, I don't see that all the bombing on both sides has done anything except to kill and destroy many innocent lives on both sides.

The problem in the Middle East took years to create. It will take years to solve, and each small step in the cause of peace helps.

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion. I seriously doubt that either of our opinions will influence what actually is happening over there, though.

[MADem]

40. In caskets. They went home in caskets. A bitter peace, that.

On October 7, 2000, three Israeli soldiers were abducted by the Hizbullah terror organization. The three Israelis are Sgt. Adi Avitan, Staff Sgt. Benyamin Avraham and Staff Sgt. Omar Sawaid. They were abducted while patroling the southern (Israeli) side of the Israeli-Lebanese border. This borderline is officially recognized by the UN Secretary General and the Security Council as the Israeli deployment line, and is fully in accord with Security Council Resolution 425.
As a result of an investigation carried out at the scene of the abduction, it emerges that the Hizbullah men disguised themselves as UN personnel, using uniforms and vehicles carrying the UNIFIL insignia.

Since their abduction, they were held incommunicado by the Hizbullah in an unknown location, in gross violation of international law. The captors denied the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and other parties permission to visit them and to learn at first hand about their state of health and the conditions they were held in.
http://www.israel.org/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/2/Israelis+Held+by+the+Hizbullah+-+Oct+2000-Jan+2004.htm

The identification process of the bodies of Staff Sgt. Binyamin Abraham, Staff Sgt. Adi Avitan and Staff Sgt.Omar Sawaed has just been completed in Germany. Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Brig. General Israel Weiss, has confirmed (and approved with his signature) the definite identification of the bodies of the three IDF soldiers who were kidnapped by the Hizbullah on October 7, 2000 at Har Dov.

With the conclusion of the identification process, IDF representatives, headed by Chief of the IDF Manpower Branch, Maj. General Gil Regev, Chief of Ground Corps Commands, Maj. General Yiftah Ron Tal and Chief of Signals, Electronics and Computers corps, Maj.General Udi Shani, visited the families of the soldiers and notified them of the positive identification.
...Today, Thursday, January 29, 2004, coffins of Staff Sgt. Binyamin Abraham, Staff Sgt. Adi Avitan and Staff Sgt. Omar Sawaed, who were kidnapped Oct. 7 2000, as their patrol was ambushed by the Hizbullah in Har Dov, will arrive during the evening hours in Israel.http://www.israel.org/MFA/Government/Communiques/2004/Bodies%20of%20three%20soldiers%20positively%20identified%20-%202

[leftofthedial]

69. yes, the IDF is therefore justified in killing everyone in Lebanon

if necessary to make their, umm, point that crimes will not be tolerated

[brmdp3123]

9. Sure it did...

until the next time.

[MADem]

39. The bodies of hostages....

That's what happened the last time. They kept the corpses for three or four years, never telling the Israelis that they were dead.

[madfloridian]

3. That's not what it is about.

It appears to be about clearing out Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon. I am not sure if that is all of it. There's a river involved.

There is more going on than we realize I think. Our Democrats are cowed on this, afraid to speak out.

[Nederland]

6. The river has nothing to do with it

For the price of one month of military action you can build a desalination plant in undisputed territory that will give you millions of gallons of fresh water indefinitely. Fighting for water costs far too much, and has too many long term costs to explain this action.

[Little Star]

20. How many desalination plants does Israel have now? n/t

[Nederland]

25. Lots. Israel is the world leader in desalination

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051230_495029.htm

[Little Star]

29. Thanks for the link.

I will pass it along for the enlightenment of others.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

16. Like " clearing out Native Americans " when

you find gold on their land. Just kill them. Women and kids too. Does might make right? or is that old old thinking?

[leesa]

4. And doesn't your little world of bombing everybody to pieces work out well

Notice how we have no more terrorism ever since we strted bombing them into submission. Not a terrorist in sight.

Who is living in the "idealistic fantasy world"???

[Nederland]

10. We will see

All I know is that decades of diplomacy and the voluntary withdrawl of Israel from Gaza and southern Lebanon got them nothing. Talking with the terrorists and giving in to their demands has failed. Time to try something new.

Hell, bombing the shit out of Germany and Japan seemed to work out pretty well.

[wryter2000]

11. This is new?

They just thought it up a couple of weeks ago?

[Nederland]

18. You are right

This isn't new. This is a return to the past policies after witnessing the total failure of trading land for peace. I guess Israel decided that given a choice between:

1) Giving up land and having suicide bombers kill you and kidnappers take you hostage.

and

2) Keeping the land and having suicide bombers kill you and kidnappers take you hostage.

Israel opted for door #2.

[Ravenseye]

17. Well it's more complicated than that isn't it Ned?

yes Israel withdrew from Gaza but it hasn't stopped them from popping in now and then, or shelling beaches, or knocking down buildings, or kidnapping Palestinans and locking them up without trial, including numerous members of the Palestinian government.

Israel doesn't need to withdraw, they need to engage. Engage with peace and a helping hand.

If every Palestinian in the west bank, israel, gaza, and within 50 miles of the Israeli borders had a good job, good healthcare, a nice home, and freedom of movement Israel would be safer than it ever could be otherwise. The Hezbollah's of the world rely on the oppression of their people to create new soldiers and maintain their power.

Time to try something new is right. Engage with a loving hand. If it gets slapped away offer another. Enough people will accept it and sooner or later more and more will. People want peace. people don't want to suffer. Give it to them and then we'll see change.

[Nederland]

22. Engage?

With whom?

The Palestinian people put in power a party that is dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. How do you engage people that have put down in writing their intention to completely destroy you?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

26. And we put in Bush

But I sure don't agree with him.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Isn't that the democracy that Bush and Olmert spoke about?

Or do we only believe in democracy when "our guy" wins?

The neocons wanted to redraw the map of the Middle East, "birth pangs" according to Condi, instead they only succeeded in creating what Tweety calls "a Shia crescent" extending from Lebanon to Iran.

[Nederland]

32. No

I believe that the Palestinians have every right to elect Hamas. I also believe that the Palestinians must face the consequences of their choice. Just like we in the US have to face the consequences of electing Bush (despite the fact that he never got a majority of the votes, but I digress...)

[IndianaGreen]

37. We didn't elect Bush!

The GOP stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, so don't you come here telling us that we elected Bush.

[Nederland]

38. Try reading my whole post

before you start typing...

[Critters2]

54. Whereas Hamas really was democratically elected

How dare people try to run their own country!

[gratuitous]

50. Do the Israelis have to face the consequences of voting in Sharon?

Or is Israel immune from such considerations? After all, a lot of the Arab world saw the ascension of Sharon and his party as a direct provocation.

But if you're going to limit your timeline to only the last month, you've set up a very artificial situation that takes into account only one significant factor, the capture of the Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. Seems a little disingenuous to place such an arbitrary limit on consideration of actions by both sides in this conflict.

Will there be peace in the Middle East between Israel and its neighbors in 50 years? In 100 years? If so, then why not begin taking steps today to bring that about? If not, then why not just let the whole area blow itself to bits and let the survivors bicker over what's left, if anything?

[Critters2]

55. Those consequences include more US aid, apparently. nt

[indygrl]

53. Maybe we should just let them fight.

If the fighting continues who knows who will come out on top. Israel is banking on winning but they are making lots of enemies and that is not good. Others may come to the aid of the Lebanese, who are the ones that are suffering most. That's all we need.
Peace Now

[High Plains]

65. Uh, try talking to them?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

23. Ah a voice of reason.

Now this makes sense.

[Lindacooks]

41. Actually, the malignant neglect of the past 5-1/2 years of

chimp rule has helped bring all of this to the boiling point.

Other Presidents have actually done some 'hard work' in this area and had success. But chimp et al just withdrew and hasn't done anything proactive in the Middle East at all, other than invading Iraq.

[arcane1]

8. "anti-Israel folks"?

I guess I can't vote in this poll, since I simply disagree with some of their government's policies :eyes:

[Ravenseye]

12. I wouldn't do any of those

If I were Israel, here's what I would have done.

I wouldn't 'bomb the shit' out of lebanon, and in fact would go out of my way to make sure that I wasn't harming the infrastructure, bridges, airports, factories. Yes Hezbollah hides in these places or uses them to get arms, but true peace will NEVER happen as long as the countries around Israel are in shambles.

I wouldn't negotiate with Hezbollah. Negotiating with terrorists would just cause more soldiers to be kidnapped, and the cycle would continue.

I would extend a hand to lebanon. I would use long term methods of helping economically develop the west bank and the gaza strip. Provide funds to help develop lebanon. Increase the economy. Reduce poverty. Build hospitals and clinics and schools. Work with the Red Crescent and Red Cross in these areas.

Using bombs and leveling people's houses and killing children will just make more terrorists. Blowing up factories and bridges will just make more people out of work, starving and terrorists.

Yes they want the destruction of Israel, but it's a cycle of violence that's created them. The cycle must be broken, and if Israel is such a great country, one whose people KNOW true suffering, then shouldn't it be the one to literally extend an olive branch?

Every time Israel kills a Palestinian or Lebanese child, more terrorists are created. More hatred for Israel is sown. It doesn't matter to these people if Hezbollah was hiding behind them. All they know is their child, or cousin, or neighbor is dead. All they know is their house is destroyed and the factory they worked at has been leveled, and they can't fly to London to visit their sister because the airport has been demolished.

If I were Israel I'd take the high road and give Peace a chance. Otherwise I'd be no better than the people killing my own citizens.

[LaPera]

13. Please define 'terrorist' and some facts, please. Does terrorism

work only one way or could there possibly, maybe, just perhaps....No, No strike that thought....only Muslims everywhere in that region that is there home can be terrorist....

If Bush agrees with whomever....I'm on the fucking opposite side.....HMMMMM..... and please clarify, what side are you on again?

[Josh]

59. See, that's what pisses me off -

I hate Bush so much and disagree with virtually everything he says, but I have always been pro-Israel and I hate to see him on the same 'side' as me, even if he so completely can't grasp the complexities of the situation.

[liberal N proud]

14. Since the general assumption here is that terrorist have the solders

that this whole thing started over. I would say that Israel needed to negotiate

[madfloridian]

15. Define anti-Israel. Please do.

Someone who believes they are not perfect? Just like our country is not perfect.

[jarnocan]

19. What should Plaestinians and others do when....

people are kidnapped and detained with no trial, and sometimes even no contact allowed from loved ones, houses bulldozed and children throwing rocks shot? ETC.
Seriously, when a Plestinian for instance has a compalint about property being destroyed, inability to get water, because they can no longer get to it, or a child injured or killed- what is there route to seek remedy?

[Nederland]

30. Answer

They should protest in a non-violent way.

Believe me, if the Palestinians had embraced non-violent protest 30 years ago they would have their own state by now. They probably would have had their own state 25 years ago. Imagine how world opinion would have turned against Israel if hundreds of Palestinians laid down in front of Israeli bull-dozers building Jewish settlements? What a nice photo-op that would have made... Think it might have given the Palestinians the moral high ground on the issue? Maybe?

But no, the Palestinians chose to send in suicide bombers. Lot of good that did them, eh?

[Ravenseye]

33. shelling their homes and dropping bombs on their factories does the same

violence begets violence. The circle must be broken. You scoff at Israel being the first to be non-violent, yet think it's the way the Palestinians should have gone.

Both should be non-violent.

Someone has to take the first step, and if it's the side that holds the most cards (ie Israel) it gives that peace movement tremendous power. Instead their actions are contininuing the cycle of violence, creating future suicide bombers, and doing nothing to make the people of Israel safer.

[theanarch]

43. i really can't believe this...

...what would Israel have done if hundreds of Palestinians tried to lay down in front of bull-dozers building (illegal) settlements? Well, the IDF would have killed most of them, and the rest would have been bull-dozed, a la Rachel Corry. Don't worry about the media--the IDF would make sure there wasn't any; everything anyone needs to know can be explained in an IDF press statement written before the event, and released after it. Non-violence only works against a colonial power with a conscience (think Ghandi and the British in India); against an occupying/colonizing power that believes in the virtue or morality of brute force (say, Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe), non-violence is simply a passive form of mass suicide. I don't care what anyone says, it's always been Israel's annexationist/land-grabbing/water-stealing/plant-as-many-colonists-as-possible-in-occupied-territories policies that drive this crisis. Everyone whines to high heaven about poor, little, defenseless, blameless Israel's right to survive and defend itself; but when anyone tries to point out the glaringly obvious flip side of this arguement (that it is Palestinians who are fighting for their survival against Israeli aggression), that's when accusations of anti-semitism start flying like so many laser-guided missiles. I must have offered this point two dozen times in as many threads over the past two weeks, and have yet to hear a defender of Israel answer it: if Israel wants peace, it will have to negotiate its borders and live within them; otherwise, they are deliberately provoking more "terrorism", and after sixty years of doing so, there's no excuse for them not knowing this.

[jarnocan]

44. true- I would like to believe that the non-violence

protests would work, but I do think they would have just bulldozed and bombed them,even Rachel Corrie did not get that much coverage,it did and does happen all the time. Thousands of Plaestinian protestors -many very young-are killed and arrested and POOF! That is the history. Stories of children getting killed occasionally got a bit of coverage, but really not that much. Everyone knows about the terrorist but not that much about constant kidnappings, water being diverted, homes/ farms being destroyed- an entire way of life. The image is- oh why don't the Palestinians just make something of themselves- they must be lazy, and just want hand outs. This is part of a deliberate and very expensive ongoing plan. I do really beleive this now.
The PNAC, has close ties to Likud and other right wing Israeli (religious right too) groups.

Twenty-four Palestinians, including a baby and two toddlers, were killed as Israel pounded the Gaza Strip with air strikes and artillery on the deadliest day in the territory for two weeks.

http://sabbah.biz/mt/
wow, deadliest in 2 weeks -that is what gets me, think, so just a couple weeks ago they had a day -like so many days worse than this one???!!!
the so called 'wall of hate' will take away more of their water, and property but will it protect them????

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. That wouldn't have achieved anything.

Non-violent resistance only works on people who care about civilian suffering. Israel would simply respond "thanks very much" and continue with the occupation and the oppression, and indeed would probably take advantage of the situation to occupy more land.

[Lerkfish]

21. gee...this sounds so...familiar...

"you have no right to criticize Bush's handling of Iraq unless you have a better plan. What would you do instead, and remember, if you don't answer like I want you to you're committing treason against the united states"


oh yeah....that's why this sounds so familiar.

[Ignoramus]

24. "If we shouldn't bomb Saddam, what's your solution then?"

God that used to irritate the hell out of me...

[Nederland]

27. Why?

Did the fact that you didn't have an alternate plan of action embarrass you?

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Nice push poll

Why not:

Surrender
Surrender
Surrender
Fight

Would have been more honest.

[Nederland]

34. As I admitted

It is not an unbiased poll. Feel free to offer another answer.

[tom_paine]

35. Man, those are some crappy poll choices

I vote OTHER: Directed special forces incursions into Southern lebanon with some tactical air support.

NO MASSIVE CIVILIAN AERIAL BOMBARDMENT!

[Nederland]

36. Good idea

The first respectable alternative I've seen in 35 posts...

[furman]

46. Israel has been been making incursions for the past six years

... since the last withdrawal in 2000.
Look how Hezbollah has grown since then.

Israel is doing this now because their intelligence says that Hezbollah has become strong enough to be a major threat to their existence. The kidnapped soldiers was just the last straw or catalyst.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Well for starters Israel could have made a military reaction...

...only twice as strong as the ones that Israel typically launched to respond to an attack of this magnitude, rather than launching a military reaction 80 times as strong as the typical past Israel response to an attack against them of the magnitude of the one Hazbollah had made. That would have sent a strong "message". And Israel could have followed that message up with a stern warning to the international community that the days of tit for tat were over, that while their response this time was only twice as severe as usual, next time it will be ten times as severe, because it would no longer allow the danger it faced from an armed adversary on it's border to stand and international agreements to be flouted.

[furman]

47. This tactic would just be met with criticism of "escalation of violence"

Hezbollah has grown strong enough that Israel feels that they are a threat to its existence. Hence the operations to severely weaken them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Of course that would have been the criticism. So what?

It would have involved a strong response without the current virtual all out warfare, and it would have been fair warning of what would come next if the international community did not respond seriously to the threat Hezbollah posed Israel. I think it would have been the right thing to do, as in morally right among other things. One should exhaust all other options prior to descending into full hot war. There could have been a degree of military action where a strong final warning could have been conveyed, say at 3 or 5 times the prior Israel traditional military retaliation level, if you think double the traditional Israeli response would not have adequately conveyed that warning. Hezbollah has grown strong enough that Israel had to act, I agree there. I don't agree with this reaction. The goal was to weaken Hezbollah, but this reaction was not the only possible course to take toward that goal, and actually it runs the risk of doing the very opposite.

[ulysses]

48. perhaps the most constructive actions Israel could have made

were options well before the kidnappings.

[furman]

49. They could have made one last attempt with the UN

...or maybe they did go to the UN (yet again, and met with the sounds of crickets)?
I wasn't following the kidnapped soldiers story day-to-day until Israel retaliated.

[sistersofmercy]

52. Disagreement with Israel's current campaign of terror in Lebanon...

does not make me anti-Israel just as my disagreement with America's criminal war in Iraq does not make me anti-American. I'm sick to death of being called antisemitic or anti-Israel for criticizing the actions of the Israeli government. The implication is a ridiculous one.
For the record in my idealistic fantasy world a fanatical jewish settler would not have murder Rabin.
I'm not voting in your silly simplistic poll because of the insulting tone proceeding it. What should Israel have done? For starters the Israeli government should have treated the population of the occupied territories with more dignity decades ago.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. they could have started with one moment of cool reflection on what to to

According to Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University, " The Israeli government, however, did not give a single moment for diplomacy, negotiations, or even cool reflection over the situation. In a cabinet meeting that same day, it authorized a massive offensive on Lebanon."

snip: "The way it started, there was nothing in Hezbollah's military act, whatever one may think of it, to justify Israel's massive disproportionate response. Lebanon has had a long-standing border dispute with Israel: In 2000, when Israel, under Prime Minister Ehud Barak, withdrew from Southern Lebanon, Israel kept a small piece of land known as the Shaba farms (near Mount Dov), which it claims belonged historically to Syria and not to Lebanon, though both Syria and Lebanon deny that. The Lebanese government has frequently appealed to the U.S. and others for Israel's withdrawal also from this land, which has remained the center of friction in Southern Lebanon, in order to ease the tension in the area and to help the Lebanese internal negotiations over implementing UN resolutions. The most recent such appeal was in mid-April 2006, in a Washington meeting between Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and George Bush. (6) In the six years since Israel withdrew, there have been frequent border incidents between Hezbollah and the Israeli army, and cease-fire violations of the type committed now by Hezbollah, have occurred before, initiated by either side, and more frequently by Israel. None of the previous incidents resulted in Katyusha shelling of the north of Israel, which has enjoyed full calm since Israel's withdrawal. It was possible for Israel to handle this incident as all its predecessors, with at most a local retaliation, or a prisoner exchange, or even better, with an attempt to solve this border dispute once and for all. Instead, Israel opted for a global war. As Peretz put it: "The goal is for this incident to end with Hezbollah so badly beaten that not a man in it does not regret having launched this incident ." (7)

The Israeli government knew right from the start that launching its offensive would expose the north of Israel to heavy Katyusha rockets attacks. This was openly discussed at this first government's meeting on Wednesday: "Hezbollah is likely to respond to the Israeli attacks with massive rocket launches at Israel, and in that case, the IDF might move ground forces into Lebanon". (8) One cannot avoid the conclusion that for the Israeli army and government, endangering the lives of residents of northern Israel was a price worth paying in order to justify the planned ground offensive. They started preparing Israelis on that same Wednesday for what may be ahead: "'We may be facing a completely different reality, in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis will, for a short time, find themselves in danger from Hezbollah's rockets', said a senior defense official. 'These include residents of the center of the country.'" (9) For the Israeli military leadership, not only the Lebanese and the Palestinians, but also the Israelis are just pawns in some big military vision. "

link:
http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000547.php

There is an offer for overall peace between Arab countries and Israel:

This specific offer was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer:

link:

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Arab Peace Initiative
(translation by Reuters).

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."
___________

And this is the offer Israel made at Camp David in 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. I wish they could turn back the clock and undo two decisions made in

the 1980s:

1) Building settlements in Arab territory
2) Invading and occupying southern Lebanon

Instead of building on the peace treaty with Egypt, they started stirring up hornets' nests elsewhere.

I don't know what they should have done, but destroying the infrastructure of a country that has just rebuilt itself after it coming to its senses about its own blood feuds is not an appropriate response to the capture of TWO soldiers.

[PATRICK]

58. And our own mess?

Now that we are in iraq do WE have brilliant solutions? We have the option simply to go home and we can't agree completely on how even that is to be done or how that will solve any problems. I have trouble trying to project into Israel's shoes for some moral/foreign policy armchair quarterbacking. It is easier at any rate in that they don't care what we think, since plainly Bush will do nothing because he also does not care.

Israel has been stuck in this trap since they joined in the bush/Cheney solution and their own red-handed idiots who destroyed all the peace deals. At this stage they ARE faced with enemies in the Iranian/US faceoff and the simultaneous strengthening of Iran's hand should Bush falter. Is there some wonderfully united peace faction that can change the course upon which all this is set?

The question may be false. it was not the capture of the prisoner but the igniting of the necessary "crush Hezbollah, neutralize Lebanon, push back Syria, beat up Hamas" corollary to the entire bush fiasco. People make it sound like Israel had a plate of choices and just went ballistic one day. Then we make it sound like someone in Israel was outside this predetermined reflex and outside criticism could do more than simply make Israel race the escalation before the real pressure built up. Knowing Bush would run interference for that pressure IS causing the escalation to continue and accelerate if not fully responsible for the whole thing in the first place. Bush has has been given more choices than Israel- by Israel. In bombing Lebanon Israel in effect is bombing its future out of existence in a different way- but this has been their fallback answer for the past fifty years no thanks to the cheerleading and policy much of the single great power that arms them but never helps solve a single real problem.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. You left off "give up land for peace".

"Give up" is a weird choice of phrase in the first place, given that the land being demanded is being illegally occupied "return" would be more accurate. And you're wrong that Israel would not be able to make peace with its neighbours if it were willing to end the occupation and support the creation of a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, and compensation for those displaced.

Let me ask the reverse question: what should Israel's opponents do? What do you think Israel would do if all anti-Israel violence stopped tomorrow?

[leftofthedial]

62. the word "terrorist" belongs in quotes

it is used as a brand name for all sorts of things

if you won't negotiate with your adversaries, with whom will you negotiate.

duh.

[stranger81]

63. how about just ONE option that's not a straw man?!? nt

[Swamp Rat]

64. My very first thought.

[AusGail]

66. If the Israeli government is too stubborn

to take the first step towards peace, why cant the US government refuse to supply the weapons of mass destruction?

[janx]

67. Is the current administration using Israel?

This has been nagging at me. It's so easy to see the world in black and white, as the good guys and the bad guys, as the Palestinians versus the Israelis.

Something's not right. We know that there are ideologues in the current administration who have wanted to "transform" the Middle East for more than a decade. We also know that there are terrorists in the Middle East--people who have no government and no say-so in terms of leadership. The Arabs who have had no government, those poor, desperate people, have become terrorists because it is the only way they can fight or the only way they know of or can conceive of, according to their opportunistic leaders. Has anyone else noticed that the leaders of the terrorist movements are usually well educated and rich, while the kids who blow themselves up may be well educated and upper class, but are mostly dirt poor?

[Irreverend IX]

68. Other: Assassinate enemy leaders

Don't these Israelis have the world's greatest spies working for them at Mossad? Why couldn't they send an undercover special forces-type operation to slit throats and plant explosives at Hezbollah headquarters? With such advanced intelligence, you'd think they could pinpoint and take out all the leaders of Hezbollah.