A two state solution?

[papasmerf]

In fact, I would bet if you looked at the states with large Jewish populations these would correlate well with blue states.

OTB

Forget the Jewish angle

you look at NY and you see a huge number employed outside the prive sector, and a larger number of welfare recepitents.

 

[onthebottom]

Forget the Jewish angle

you look at NY and you see a huge number employed outside the prive sector, and a larger number of welfare recepitents.

Oh, I don't know, of the top ten jewish population states, Kerry won 7 of them (NY, CA, NJ, PA, MA, IL, ML) while Bush won FL,OH, TX.

OTB

 

[Peeping Tom]

I had no idea it was that close ... I assumed the NE was a Dem blowout ... silly me

John Kerry won NY State by 1.2 million votes.

There are roughly 2 million Jews in NYC. If they heavily shifted republican (though highly unlikely), that could make things interesting.

 

[Ranger68]

As Cobra1 accurately corrected me, both in 1967 and in the Lebanon invasion, Israel attacked first preemptively.

With regards to Lebanon, the invasion was made to disrupt terrorist attacks from bases in south Lebanon. In 1978 the PLO, based in Lebanon, made a seaborne raid on Israel and hijacked a bus. 36 passengers were ultimately killed when the IDF stormed the bus. Was the invasion of Lebanon then pre-emptive? Was the American invasion of Taliban Afghanistan in retaliation for Al Qaeda attacks on New York "pre-emptive"? I think the matter is debatable.

Certainly, the Israeli government has always treated itself as "at war" with these terrorist organizations, all of which make no bones of the very reason for their existence - the destruction of Israel. The US, too, after 9/11, considered itself at war with Al Qaeda, in at least some political and legal sense. With the likelihood of old-order national conflicts becoming smaller, and the likelihood of complex internacine wars and wars against terrorist organizations becoming higher, the meaning of "pre-emptive" should be questioned.

In 1967, the attack was certainly pre-emptive - pre-emptive to what seemed (and still seems, even with the benefit of hindsight) to be an Arab attack on Israel.

The PLO had attacked Israel from bases in Syria during the previous year. This led to artillery battles, and in at least one case, dogfights between Israeli and Syrian air forces. The *national armed forces* of these countries had already engaged in combat. Soviet assertions that the Israelis then concentrated invasion troops near the Syrian border were proved false by UN inspection teams. Neither side was, as yet, preparing for invasion, but they were much closer to being at war than at peace.

The problem then became one of Nasser running out of control of his would-be Soviet masters. With the Soviets provoking him with misinformation about Israeli intentions, Nasser moved large formations into the Sinai, then requested that the UN remove peacekeeping troops at many points of the Egypt-Israel frontier. U Thant, in typical UN fashion, promptly complied. One of these abandoned strongpoints was Sharm El Sheikh, from which the Egyptians once again chose to blockade Israel's only Red Sea / Suez port, Eilat. With apparent Soviet backing, and the resurgence of global, united Arab support for the anti-Israeli cause, Nasser had the bit between his teeth, much to the chagrine of the Soviets (and the US).

At the end of May, King Hussein committed, or perhaps resigned, to a Jordanian-Egyptian military agreement. An Egyptian general was subsequently dispatched to take over the Jordanian forces.

Now surrounded by militarily cooperative Arab states, at least two of whom were aggressively fortifying and mobilizing border areas (Jordan and Egypt), with small-scale ground and air combat with the Syrians an on-going matter, and with the Strait of Tiran again closed to Israeli shipping, the Israelis felt they had little choice but to pre-emptively attack. IMO, the blame for this war falls squarely on the shoulders of Nasser, with several parties having contributed - the Soviets and perhaps the UN chief among them.

Of course, in 48-49, 56, and 73, the Israelis were attacked without acting "pre-emptively".

 

[luv2fress]

Well at least Ranger68 knows his history, could not agree more with him.

Now, lets not forget that there really is no such thing as a Palastinian if you go back in history. Palastinians are not the people who wandered around Palastine from old bible times.

Lets also not forget that the Jewish people have over 5700 years of well documented history in the region.

Lets not forget that their temple is ON TOP of the Jewish holy sites.

Now lets remember that Arafat (who in my opinion was nothing more than a terrorist until the day he died) was offered (in 2000)96% of the land he was asking for, he was also given new land in Isreal proper to offset the 4% loss. He was offered autonomy over the Arab part of Jerusalem, and he still turned it down. He said he wanted all of Jerusalem, and the right of return. Both those issues are non starters for any negotiations with Isreal. There is no way that a country of 6 million would allow 5 million to come back just like that. It would be the end of Isreal.

Lets not forget that Arafat, Hamas, the PLO etc, have it in their so called constitution the total destruction of Isreal and to this day refuse to take the clause out.

Lets also look at the peaceful, economic relations Jordan & Egypt have with Isreal since their peace treaties were signed.

As for Syria (those bastards) they could have their stupid Golan heights back anytime, all they have to do is reconize Isreal and agree to simple security matters.

Truth be told, if Arafat wanted peace, he could have had it yeares ago. Instead he spend his whole life promoting violence, teaching the destruction of Isreal to children in school, paying families to have their kids blow themselves up etc etc.

Golda Mier said it best like 40 years ago. "When the Palestinians learn to love their children more than their country, then and only then will we have peace."

 

[tompeepin]

Re: Re: A two state solution?

... In 1967, the attack was certainly pre-emptive - pre-emptive to what seemed (and still seems, even with the benefit of hindsight) to be an Arab attack on Israel. ...

Of course, in 48-49, 56, and 73, the Israelis were attacked without acting "pre-emptively".

All this goes to show what a difficult situation this is. If I were an Israeli I would have reacted the same way. If I were a Palestinian I would have probably reacted the same way. The outside agitators, be they: Arab, Soviet or American, have always been a problem. It just goes to show that the primary motivator is self-interest of the worst kind, greed.

Now if we could only get Israel to accept the green line boundaries and let the Palestinians form a sovereign state in the West bank and Gaza. And the only hope for Jerusalem is as an open international city. Wow what a dreamer I am!

Walking in other's shoes takes great imagination.

 

[luv2fress]

Tompeepin, you are forgetting the right of return that Palestinians want. How should Isreal fix that!!!!!

 

[tompeepin]

IMHO

Tompeepin, you are forgetting the right of return that Palestinians want. How should Isreal fix that!!!!!

Forgeta 'boutit!!! That is total bullshit. What is done is done. Let's turn ALL of America over to the "aboriginal peoples". Can one bring all the Tutsis back to life? So they should keep killing each other? What is past is past ... history ... one can only move forward. What about the farmers who's land was expropriated for Mirabel airport? How far do we go back? 5700 years? hahaha

I agree with you. No return. But then again no land grab with the wall, nor "settlements" either. I bet you'll have a few settlers turn terrorists. ;-)

 

[luv2fress]

A little unknown fact, a huge portion of the religous right orthodox settlers in the occupied territorys are Americans who moved there. And yes, forget about right of return is the answer, but so far it is nothing Arafat and the Palestinians were willing to give up, this and the clause about no more Isreal.