Len

>>What I don't 'get' here Len is why the Syrians, Lebanese and others forced the Palestinians out of their countries or into camps. Can you explain this? The Palestinians have indeed been abused but what often fails to be acknowledged is that their fellow Arabs have treated themn worse that Israel ever has. I'm old enough to remember that Lebanon made all the Palestinians live in camps in the southern part of their country to form a shield against Israeli military responses. They used their own for human shields. Just like the Infantada where kids are used by the adults to hide behind.
>
>No, I can't explain it.

Thanks for the honest answer. IMO it's a huge step forward. <s>

I'll explain it for you.

Hate. Coming stright from some Palestinian hearts. Read 'some' as 'some', ok? <g>

>
>
>>Arafat and his buddies have received literally BILLIONS in aid over the years. Where is the evidence that they've tried to put this to good use? Als, PM Barak offered to Mr. Arafat everything the Palestinians wanted except control of the Temple Mount and Arafat refused. Why? Why not take that and then start negotiating for the remaining 5%?? That's either a VERY STUPID move or a decision that reflects UTTER STUPIDITY on the part of the PLO leadership or they are utterly cynical and really don't want to help their people. I think this is the case. Look, wouldn't it have been better for them (the PLO) to have accepted Barak's offer??? If you go to borrow one million dollars and the lender responds that they will lend you 975,000 is it smart to refuse?? Tahe the 975K and go find the rest either later or somewhere else.
>
>Following the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein agreed to leave Kuwait & drop all claims to sovreignty over Kuwait, in return for support for US support for a peace deal between Israel & Palestine. Following Sept 11, Afghanistan agreed to hand-over Bin Laden if the US showed the evidence they had against him. In both cases your government refused & started a war which killed many people. Why ? I would suggest that one reason would be that it would be seen to be giving in, a small surrender of some degree of power, may be one of the same reasons Arafat declined.

Are you referring to the Wye River Accord? IMO a complete waste of good paper. The problem is that it's based upon a fundamentaly flawed position regarding the nature of mankind. There really are some people who simply want to kill. Man is not fundamentally 'good', the faulty presumption.

The Palestinians also agreed to cease their hostilities didn't they?

The Afghanistans didn't hand bin Laden over, did they? They were repeatedly warned, weren't they. Candidly I think they thought that G Bush was B Clinton. I suppose to their supprise they found that he said what he meant and meant what he said - something I'll gladly admit is not commonin political arenas. <g>

Saddam was also suppose dto let us in to inspect. He hindered that as well - particularly when proof positive was discovered he wa shiding stuff. Please make sure you tell both sides here... <s>

>
>See this for more details of Barak's offer :
>http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/030102/030102u.htm
>
>>Also, why don't the leaders go blow themselves up rather than their own children? That is, if they're so committed to their cause... Personally I think they're cowards. What did Arafat say when the Israelis decided to respond with force? Oh yeah.. He wailed like a baby about how the Israelis were going to kill him. Some leader. The Israelis could kill him any time they want. They haven't.
>
>Your presidents have sent many of your young men to their deaths in futile wars over the last 50 years, but how many of them were leading them into battle. Is that similar cowardice ?

There's one big difference in most (not all) cases. We've sent our boys off to liberate other countries not our own. Perhaps we should have left the Brits to Germany? Remember, "Lend Lease".

>
>>
>>I'm not trying to say that the Israelis haven't made mistakes. They have. It seems to me that all they (Israel) wants is to be left alone.
>
>If they so want to be left alone, why are they continually setting up illegal settlements in the Palestinians territory ?

Maybe they don't see tham as being illegal. I seem to recall that they've torn some down. As I said before, I do not think the Israelis are guiltless but there's surely no morally equivilent position here that can stand the light of close examination. But I do accept your point that they (the Israelis) have not had a 'perfect run', that's for sure.

>
>>Candidly, until Jews started showing interest in the land in the early 20th century it was for the most part barren and neglected. There are many myths about the Palestinians State.
>
>And that's one of the myths about the area prior to 1917, put about by the Pro-Zionists, at least according to the Pro-Palestinians. Each side has it's own version of history.

The area, prior to 1917 was for the most part barren. It was the Israelies that purchased and then drained the swamp near Megiddo (which the Arabs wanted back as soon as the land was good) as one of their first attempts to gain back some of their historical lands. Read 'purchased'. There is indeed a lot more here than meets the eye. On that we agree. <g>