How about a withdrawl of all foreign aid (except emergency food and medicines) from both Israel and Palestine until all violence and forced reterritorialisation stops and a solution is reached by the representatives of both parties through intensive negotitation with independent mediators? David Wood With all due respect, David, you have no understanding of the situation at all. The Palestinians are the helpless prisoners of Israeli policy. There is no need for, or possibility of, negotiation on fundamentals. Israel can withdraw unilaterally from the settlments, end the occupation, recognize the Palestinian right of return in principle and renounce the absolutist claim to Jerusalem. Sharon is proposing to withdraw from Gaza to reduce the cost of keeping the Palestinians out of Israel and to reinforce the Israeli position in the West Bank. No country or group of countries is willing or, in most cases, even capable of intervening effectively. Palestinians are dependent on aid for survival.The aid provided to the Israelis by the United States is largely for military purposes and is in the form of American weapons and equipment with which to attack the Palestinians or as our spokespersons for the Israeli government would say, 'to defend themselves' in the manner the world witnessed yet again in Rafah.

If your superior 'understanding' of the situation means you set possibel solutions as conditions for negotiation then no solution is likely.David Wood I don't claim any superior understanding of the situation. I don't think it's very hard to see that the future is being shaped by Sharon's 'war on terrorism'. This involves assassinating `terrorist leaders', building walls and fences and redeploying settlers from Gaza to the West Bank. Any negotiation required is between Sharon and his cabinet. The Palestinian `government' has no say in the matter. The article by Lindsay Talmud, From the sublime to the ridiculous, elsewhere in Open Democracy , sets out this reading of the conflict. http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-97-1871.jsp negotiated peaceful solution might matter enough to those actually involved in the conflict to abandon continuous posturing. David Wood Why would a peaceful solution be of interest to General Sharon? You seem to indicate that no mediation is possible - in which case, you are effectively condemning the Palestinians you claim to be supporting (from a safe distance). David Wood The Palestinians are condemned by the process of expansion of the Jewish state. This is the reality of the conflict and posturing about 'negotiation' is no help. I don't claim to 'support' the Palestinians in the sense that you imply when you talk about being at 'a safe distance'.

Eric hasn't won anything. He hasn't helped one Palestinian, hasn't convinced anybody of anything. It's tough to argue with guys like Eric, because they hate Israel so much that they demonize everything associated with it. Cuts in foreign aid (and the Palestinians receive PLENTY) is not the answer. Israel's economy is large enough that it would absorb the cut, and it is militarily superior anyway. It would not help the Palestinians either. The problem is not the money itself; it is how the money is spent. The PA is massively corrupt; billions in aid has gone into the pockets of Arafat and his cronies. And as usual, the whole story is not being told. Israel offered to compensate some of the Palestinians whose homes were demolished. The PA refused to accept the money. That's not even mentioning how much is spent on terrorism. The solutions are out there; we have Geneva and Oslo and Ayalon-Nusseibeh. They all require what we don't have, which is real engagement between the populations, which suicide bombing has made totally impossible because Israelis, who during Oslo started to get to know the Palestinians better, could not do that today even if they wanted to. I have tried, with little success because of the irredentists around here, to start discussion on these plans before. The withdrawal from Gaza is one starting point.

solana, You are out of order in picking out eric and myself ( and maybe one other by implication). The reason I have made this type of comment is because people like mbrenner adopt the straightest bat ( I mean a cricket bat )to every ball bowled at them. He and eric ( although I buy into eric's position ) have made it a dialogue and mbrenner can only see one wrong, come what may, and that is the Palestinians. You have obviously noticed the staleness of the thread and should not have been taken aback by my deliberately pointed comment. In any case, I think that my main assertion is basically true and however you may decide to interpret it, I made a case out, albeit briefly. I cannot see that my logic on the matter is inferior to anyone else's. I might indeed be absolutely right in saying that no adequate and acceptable solution to both sides will happen for years to come.It might be salutary to recognize this possibility and to look at the problem from this point of view. Posing 'solutions' is a game that can be played but after so many years of bitter conflict, it might distract from the reality of the situation. It might be better to focus on the underlying factor that stands in the way of any compromise and that is religion. At least in this particular context. It is extremely unlikely that the disputants will give up their religions or that even the more secularly disposed will be able to detach themselves from the others in their community, and therefore the mistrust that is often a concomitant of religious difference added to the terrible history of the conflict, creates an impasse that can endure for more decades. At the end of the day, you are the moderator but I see no reason to eat humble pie because of it. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

mbrenner. ["As usual, Brolly is fooling no one. Of course, people like David, Alan, and I have all engaged in dialogue, even though our views are considerably different. Brolly and Eric have consistently refused to engaged in discussion of solutions, presenting instead far-left boilerplate and sometimes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. (Case in point: "The Jewish neoconservatives conspired for years to get the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein and to install a puppet government in Iraq." Brolly, of course, will now swear that he's not an antisemite or that he didn't know that plenty of neocons are not Jewish, and that even if they all were, the assertion that they act because of their Jewishness is a canard.)"] As for my fooling no one, the point is that I am not tryng to fool anybody, as it isn't necessary.Most people have a clear idea of what is happening. What exactly does the following statement that you made mean - "Brolly and Eric have consistently refused to engaged in discussion of solutions, presenting instead far-left boilerplate and sometimes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories". I don't suppose anyone except you knows what a 'far-left boilerplate conspiracy theory' actually means. Is this an example of your method of discussion, using unintelligible phrases. I notice that you say that eric and I are only 'guilty' of 'sometimes' anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. So what interpretation are you putting on the rest of what we say? I would submit that you disregard anything you find you are unable to give an answer to. Jewish neocons belong to a close and incestuous circle in Washington as a visit to the following web address will reveal http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15481 Of course there are non-Jewish neonconservatives but the high proportion of Jews among the neocons that have a very significant influence in this administration is absolutely undeniable. The following extract from an article in 'Precis Report' sheds light on the influence and aims of the Jewish neoconservatives and the fact that the paper mentioned in the excerpt was written by Jews specifically for Binyamin Netanyahu, is clear evidence of the primary commitment the Jewish neocons have to Israel. "Their exists within the Bush administration a group of hawks often referred to as the Bush Cabal. It is the intent of this group to re-mould the Middle East on Israeli-American lines. "The hawks claim that President Bush has already accepted their plan and made destabilisation of "despotic regimes" a central goal of his foreign policy." " The "skittles theory" of the Middle East - that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes - has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the "war against terrorism"." The birth of this policy is traced to "a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled "A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm", it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism ..." [snip] "The paper set out a plan by which Israel would "shape its strategic environment", beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and "roll back" Syria. Jordan, it suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by "weaning" the Shia Muslim population away from Syria and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of Iraq. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them", the paper concluded. To succeed, the paper stressed, Israel would have to win broad American support for these new policies - and it advised Mr Netanyahu to formulate them "in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war which apply well to Israel". The leader of the "prominent opinion makers" who wrote ( "A clean break" ) was Richard Perle - now chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon. " [snip] With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it. The six-year-old plan for Israel's "strategic environment" remains more or less intact, though two extra skittles - Saudi Arabia and Iran - have joined Iraq, Syria and Lebanon on the hit list. Whatever members of the Iraqi opposition may think, the plan to replace Saddam Hussein with a Hashemite monarch - descendants of the Prophet Muhammad who rule Jordan - is also very much alive. Evidence of this was strengthened by the surprise arrival of Prince Hassan, former heir to the Jordanian throne, at a meeting of exiled Iraqi officers in London last July." So the comment by mbrenner that "the assertion that they (neocons) act because of their Jewishness is a canard", must be regarded as either evidence of enormous self-delusion or more likely a vain attempt to dismiss what is patently obvious to most. plotting to get Saddam overthrown, this is a fact. Richard Perle and Wolfowitz pitched up in Israel in 1996 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

OK, guys, that's enough! You want to find a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and look what you're doing... Continuing the conflict, attacking each other, and not coming up with any solutions at all. Let's not waste opportunity and put our minds to better use than bashing each other and exchanging insults. Now,those of you who envision a two-state solution, how do you think that solution should be implemented? What should be done to make sure that a new Palestinian state, if it were to exist, would be a stable, democratic, and peaceful state, not another terror-sponsoring dictatorship? Those of you who'd prefer a one-state solution, what do you think should be done to keep the two groups from antagonizing each other? What kind of a government would it have? How would elections be run and decisions enforced? What role would religion play? Try to think about these questions first! I really do think it's more interesting than calling each other names, as if you were little kids! Irina

> We could, should and must hit these swine right where > it hurts: by stopping what they suck out of us every > year, i.e. the 5 Billion dollars of our tax payers > cash. > That's right: we give it to Zionism, so they can > steal Palestinian land by military force; it gives > no benefit to the ordinary citizen but only the > select few, the Zionist mafia and friends.They feed > off their publics politically induced fear and > paranoia. > Maybe it's the Palestinians who need our help and > just maybe, "then", we would have some real friends > in the Middle East. Here, Ladies and Gentlemen, is Lawson's solution. It's a real ice breaker, really showing Lawson's appreciation of the humanity of the other side. Hooray for Lawson. Message was edited by: mbrenner

Ok, let's not talk about a solution. Goodbye people, you've disappointed me (again), but hardly surprised me.David Wood The 'solution' is the Sharon plan of murder, the building of barriers and the redeployment of settlers. After the disappearance of Sharon, an element may arise which favours another path, possibly with still worse consequences for Palestinians and not necessarily beneficial to the Israelis. There has to be some regard for reality in discussing 'solutions'. In the meantime, there are many points of detail, even questions like Israel's membership of the UN which tell us something about the UN, even if their relationship to the conflict may be peripheral.

For ten years, there were Labor governments who negotiated with the Palestinians. mbrenner With the results we see. You even suggest,like all the fearmongers, that what comes after Sharon will be worse, even though, as usual, there is absolutely nothing to back that opinion. The Sharon Plan of confining the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories to concentration camps has the potential for disaster. One reality is that the Jewish people exist and have a right to a state of their own and currently do have such a state and are not going to give it up. mbrenner The results of this opinion are, indeed, all too real. Every country in the world is a member of the UN, from the US to the hellholes like Sudan and Syria. mbrenner But you haven't given a credible reason why, in view of your vilification of the UN, you don't think Israel should resign. As I have said before, Israel's presence strengthens the moral quality of the UN considerably.mbrenner This moral quality which has recently been illustrated by the murder of Palestinians designated as terrorists and of others in the vicinity, the illegal building of the Barrier in Occupied Territory, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the atrocities in Rafah? This is not the morality which the world community professes. The question therefore arises if those proclaiming such an eccentric morality belong in the UN.

There are no concentration camps in the territories. To continue using this phrase is an outrage that the moderator should comment upon. mbrenner As I understand it, Gaza is enclosed by a fence on land. Around this fence are roads, patrolled by Israeli goons (or fine young citizens, as might be claimed). The sea approaches are under Israeli control. Gaza airport has been destroyed by the Israelis. Since it was built by funds from the European Union, this is another item on the mounting sum owed by Israel to the European taxpayer. The skies above Gaza are roamed by Israeli death squads and surveillance craft. Gaza qualifies as a concentration camp in these respects.

... I guess for the self-delusional, anything is possible.mbrenner Michael, You admit all the facts. You simply claim that it is justifiable to enclose the Palestinians of Gaza behind a fence, patrol the perimeter roads, shut the Palestinians off from the sea, destroy the airport and have death squads and surveillance craft control the skies.

There are no concentration camps (that I've heard of) in Israel. There are, however, ghettos. These and their possibilities are well understood in Israel, for obvious reasons. And believe me, I'm not self-delusional ...

Doesn't matter what you call the Left Bank or Gaza, they are effectively part of Israel. However you want to define the political/adminstrative borders within the country there are still no concentration camps - either death camps like Auschwitz, political camps like Dachau or even ones in the original sense that the Brits (bless their inventive little cotton socks) set up in South Africa during the Boer War. What they have are areas of town or city surrounded by guards, either full time or on an ad hoc basis. The Israelis control comings and goings. They control the utilities. They control the resources. And now they are copying the Warsaw model and setting up fences. They don't have guards in the camps on a 24-hour basis. They don't have any of the other accoutrements of a German concentration camp, or a British one for that matter. They only go into the camps in heavily-armed convoys. That's ghetto, not concentration camp! You know what they say about people who have been abused abusing others.

Palestinian Christians: persecuted, tormented, abandoned and alone:- The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species. When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80000. Now it’s down to 60000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification ‘Christian’ includes some 20000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union. So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland? We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget. I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see the modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to Paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to Hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel. Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations. The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone. Less well known are the views of the American Religious Right. Strangely, they find the liberation Iraqis from a vile dictator just, but do not find it unjust for us to be under military occupation for 38 long years. Said Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma): ‘God Appeared to Abraham and said: “I am giving you this land,”the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.’ House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) was even more forthright: ’I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank… I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave.’ There is a phrase for this. Ethnic cleansing. So why do American Christians stand by while their leaders advocate the expulsion of fellow Christians? Could it be that they do not know that the Holy Land has been a home to Christians since, well… since Christ? Do not think I am asking for special treatment for Christians. Ethnic cleansing is evil whoever does it and to whomever it is done. Palestinian Christians: Anglican, Maronite Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Armenians, Baptists, Copts and Assyrians have been rubbing shoulders with each other and with other religions: Muslims, Jews, Druze and (most recently) Baha’is for centuries. We want to do so for centuries more. But we can’t if we are driven out by despair. What we seek is support: material, moral, political and spiritual. As Palestinians we grieve for what we have lost, and few people (the Ashkenazi Jews are one) have lost more than us. But grief can be assuaged by the fellowship of friends. (Signed Prof. Abe W. Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem.