Conference taveng::bagels

	Try also URL:

http://elections96-Malam.Macom.co.il/

	Danny

The official results copied off shomronnews:

At 17:00 (Israel time) the Elections committee announced:

The Election Committee has declared the victory of Binyamin Netanyahu. At a
5:00pm press conference, the announcement was made following the completion
of the tabulation of all of the remaining votes. Tamar Edri, Head of the
Elections Committee made the official proclamation. Netanyahu - 50.4%  Peres
49.5%

The final party listing was announced as well. There are changes from
previous announcements.

Labor 34,  Likud 32,  Meretz 9,  NRP 9, Shas 10, Yisrael B'Aliyah 7,  Third
Way 4,  Moledet 2,  Hadash 5,  ADP 4,  UTJ 4.

    I'm interested in reading how the Israeli government operates and what
    type of democracy it is.  Anyone know where I can find such
    information?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    I was on vacation during the final weeks of the election, but here are
    some interesting Peres' quotes.
    
The following quotes were taken from the "Americans for a  Safe  Israel"
Web site (http://www.afsi.org/afsi/shimon.htm). Only some of the quotes
are included here, many more can be found at the Web site.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                SHIMON SAYS

            Israel's Prime Minister Shimon Peres in His Own Words

           "Whoever forgets the past is condemned to repeat it."
                               --George Santayana.

  "I have become totally tired of history, because I feel history is a long
                             misunderstanding."
                                 --Shimon Peres

                       Copyright � 1996 Gerber & Isaac

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            A Man for All Seasons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Shimon Says: Papers are papers    Then Shimon Says: You cannot sit down,
  and realities are realities. We   reach an agreement and then go around
  cannot judge the PLO and its      and declare different things. You
  leader just by what he is         govern by words and respect for words.
  saying. Would we do so, we        If you devalue a word or an agreement,
  would be completely wrong and     you kill the peaceful solution. [ibid]
  we would be in troubles.
  [Heritage, Los Angeles, June 3,
  1994]

  Shimon Says: No doubt that        Then Shimon Says: (Asked about the
  Israel's next goal should be to   Secretary of the Arab League's
  join the Arab League. [Lecture    response that Israeli Jews had to
  at the Islamic College in         become Moslems before they could join
  Western Galilee, quoted in        the Arab League) Well, that also shows
  Ha'aretz, December 21, 1994 and   that it belongs to the past. The Arab
  in The Jewish Press, December     League is part of the past. There is
  30, 94]                           no room for an Arab League. [Middle
                                    East Quarterly, March 1995, p. 77]

  Shimon Says: Syria is likely to   Then Shimon Says: President Assad has
  attack Israel even if a peace     the opportunity to have something
  agreement is reached. [Yediot     extra because he and we can really
  Achronoth, October 5, 1994]       bring belligerence to a total end [New
                                    York Times, November 23, 1995, p.6]

  Shimon Says: [Asked about the     Then Shimon Says: We have learned
  wisdom of a deal with President   there is no stable peace unless it is
  Hafez al Assad of Syria, who      based on relations between democratic
  rules by force and has no         states. [Knesset speech, January 25,
  logical successor] Well, the      1993]
  system of government is
  transitional, peace is
  permanent. [Middle East
  Quarterly, March 1995, pp. 77
  78]

  Shimon Says: We shall not         Then Shimon Says: The Arabs used to
  recognize the PLO unless it       say: "If you recognize the PLO, you
  amends the Palestinian Covenant   will be recognized by the Arab world.
  and renounces terrorism.          We recognized the PLO but we have not
  [Speech to Knesset, August 30,    been recognized. They also said, "We
  1993]                             will put a stop to terrorist actions."
                                    I observe that they continue. [Agence
                                    France Presse, March 24, 1995]

  Shimon Says: We are going to      Then Shimon Says: [There will be]
  copy a European example which     total separation between Israel and
  is called Benelux. I hope the     PLO-controlled autonomy areas. Check
  relations between the             points will be established and the
  Jordanians, the Palestinians      entry and exit of all persons and
  and us will be very much of the   vehicles in and out of �Israel proper�
  same nature that exists in        will be closedly monitored. Anyone,
  Benelux. [Address to Council of   Jew or Arab, violating this, will be
  the Socialist International,      punished to the full extent of the
  October 6, 1993]                  law. [Speech to the Nation quoted in
                                    The Jewish Press, March 8, 1996]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Moralist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe it is fitting that the [Nobel] prize has been awarded to Yasir
Arafat. [Nobel Speech, Near East Report, December 19, 1994]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Negotiator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not a negotiation of give and take because Israel has something to
give but has nothing to take...[Statement before the 50th Session of the UN
Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, February 10, 1994]

I don't think we should judge the process by the performance of Yasir
Arafat. We're not negotiating with Yasir Arafat. We're negotiating with
ourselves... [Jewish Week, June 2, 1994]

(Asked about Arafat's post Oslo promise to conduct jihad against Israel)
What counts is not the intentions of the Palestinians. What counts is the
confrontation between two realities. [Jerusalem Post International Edition,
Week ending August 26, 1995]

Every offer which exists dies. It is always necessary to come with new
proposals to bridge the gap. What already exists brings up opposition which
already exists. [Interview on Israeli television cited in The Jewish Press,
November 24, 1995]

All known solutions are dead ones. The art of negotiation is to invent and
create and not to hang from the cliffs of yesterday. (New York Times,
November 23, 1995, p. 6)

The real problem in any negotiations is the existence of another party. And
this is very hard to overcome, believe me, because when you see the other
party you may forget who sent you over to negotiate, and you may feel some
blowing winds in your back. [Speech at Washington Institute for Near East
Studies, February 2, 1994]

I would say that among Palestinians a written agreement is 40% serious
commitment and 60% rhetoric and decoration. [Survey of Arab Affairs,
December 1, 1995]

We do not want to continue to hold onto Syrian land. The Golan Heights are
Syrian land, and we are sitting on the land of the Syrians. [Yediot
Achronot, May 28, 1995)

(Responding to an interviewer who asked "Are you saying that what Arafat
told you in Oslo is sufficient, that he does not have to sign any new
commitments?") I am not a notary who writes affidavits. [Kol Israel, May 23,
1994]

Under the present climate, I do not see a possible agreement on a map. So we
have suggested, instead of having a permanent map, we have a transitional
voyage from the present planet to a new planet.... [Briefing to Foreign
Journalists, June 28, 1993]

Whoever suggests a permanent solution, suggests a permanent conflict.
Because I do not believe that the Palestinian side and our side can reach an
agreement....That is the idea of having an interim solution. Instead of
having a nut, having a calendar. [Meeting with Palestinian journalists,
Jerusalem, March 8, 1994]

(In response to a question whether he still believes Arafat's promises) I
believe in peace. [Kol Israel interview, May 23, 1994]

Reporter: How did you conclude things when you reached an understanding?
Pere: He [Arafat] would take out a small notebook and write in it in Arabic.
Reporter: And you?
Peres: I remember quite well what we agreed.
[Ma'ariv, September 24, 1995]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Zionist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(To Ruth Matar, a long time Jerusalem resident who immigrated from the
United States and who criticized him in accented Hebrew): Go back where you
came from. [Jerusalem Post International Edition, February 3, 1996, p.30]

The more we give up land, we discover we have more Ph.D.s per kilometer so
we are going to make a living on the Ph.D.s and not on the mileage.
(Pennsylvania Gazette, November 1994, p.16 )

We are discovering that all the things we are fighting for are not so
important....[Jewish Week, June 2, 1994]

We live in a world where markets are more important than countries.
[Pennsylvania Gazette, November 1994, p.17]

I think the Palestinian people should be more supportive of Arafat. Arafat
brought them a great thing. After 28 years of idling around, of having
nothing, he brought them something tangible....Arafat kept the Palestinian
issue for 29 years on the agenda, as a leader. [Meeting with Palestinian
journalists, Jerusalem, March 8, 1994]

What does it mean to economize politics? To establish the good of the
individual, the good of the economy, as our top political priority, and not
such outmoded ideas as prestige, war, nationalism and the like. [Remarks
before the Knesset Economic Committee on the Arab Boycott, Jerusalem,
February 21, 1994]

One day our self awareness and personal identity will be based on this new
[ultra regional] reality, and we will find that we have stepped outside the
national arena. [The New Middle East, p. 81.]

People say: "Why do you give back land?" I'm asking myself: Do we give back
land? Was the land in our hands? [Remarks to UJA Delegates, Jerusalem,
August 14, 1995]

How strange it is, I found myself thinking, that we Israelis are now the
ones granting the Palestinians what the British granted us more than 70
years ago, a 'homeland in Palestine,' in the words of the Balfour
Declaration of November 1917. [Battling for Peace, p. 303]

(In 1993, after Arafat read Peres's speech to the European Parliament
calling for economic aid to the Palestinians) Arafat had said he was not
surprised; he knew, he had explained, that I was capable of saying things
and doing things on behalf of the Palestinians that many Arab states would
neither say nor do. [Battling for Peace, p. 302]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Defense Strategist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a mistake to bomb the nuclear reactor in Iraq. [Haaretz, December 24,
1995]

Luck is also security [Shomron News Service, November 28, 1995]

Now we must strive for fewer weapons and more faith. [New Middle East, p.
172]

Armies might conquer physical entities, but they cannot conquer qualitative
ones. At this stage of the game, objects that may be subject to a military
takeover are no longer of value. [New Middle East, p. 35]

Between ten bunkers and ten hotels, ten hotels are also defense. [Haaretz,
January 29, 1996]

In face of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare, what advantage do we
reap from having hundreds of tanks, cannons and jets? [New Middle East,
p.78]

In politics, it starts in your kitchen. You can break eggs into omelletes,
but you cannot make from omelettes eggs again. And we don't want to omelette
the land. [Briefing to Foreign Journalists, June 28, 1993]

Markets are more important than borders. [Die Welt (Berlin), July 14, 1995]

The enemy today is the desert. [New Middle East, p. 115]

Give me peace, we will give up the nuclear option. That's the whole story.
[Jerusalem Report, January 25, 1996, p. 9]

An army that can occupy knowledge has yet to be built. And that is why
armies of occupation are passe. [Remarks upon Acceptance of the Nobel Peace
Prize, Oslo, December 10, 1994]

The Government is firmly committed to continuing the peace policy, which has
bolstered national and personal security...The truth is that personal
security in Israel cities and roads is better today than in the past.
[Speech at Inauguration of the Winter Session of the Knesset, October 11,
1993]

(Asked about his dismissal of Israeli military intelligence experts who
disagreed with his rosy views on Arab intentions) I simply have not found
experts regarding the future. If you find me experts on the future, I will
speak with them." [Ma'ariv, May 12, 1995]

(Responding to Arafat's exhortation of an Arab audience to Jihad against
Israel and his praise of suicide bombers as "martyrs and heroes") What
counts is not the intentions of the Palestinians.
     Pressed by a journalist: Are you saying that it makes no difference
     whether Arafat genuinely wants peace or just wants to get as much as he
     can?
     Peres: Yes, I do believe it is irrelevant
[Jerusalem Post International Edition, August 26, 1995]

I have always tended to be overly optimistic. [New Middle East, p. 18]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Democrat
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm convinced there is a stream of history that even the public polls cannot
stop. Suppose we have a majority of people saying we don't like it so we'll
stop? [Interview with David Makovsky, Jerusalem Post International Edition,
July 16, 1994]

As a protege of David Ben Gurion, I subscribe to his philosophy that "I may
not know what the people want; I do know what is good for the people."
[Jerusalem Post International Edition, December 23, 1995]

Leadership, in my judgment, means to be elected by the constituencies of
yesterday and to represent the constituencies of tomorrow. We have to answer
to a constituency that doesn't exist. [Briefing to Foreign Journalists, June
28, 1993]

There are settlers who are extreme, and against them we shall take all the
necessary measures: administrative detention, limitation of movement,
disarming them all this we shall take, undoubtedly. And the ones who commit
any crime will be taken to court. [Meeting with Palestinian Journalists,
Jerusalem, March 8, 1994]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Economist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We claim that the United States and Europe became so productive that the
only thing you can really produce is unemployment. The more productive you
are becoming, the more unemployed people you are having. The time has come
to export your unemployment. [Speech to Washington Institute for Near East
Studies, February 2, 1994]

What we have to do is to economize our policies, and not to politicize our
economies, which is so costly and so expensive. Dictatorship, nowadays, is
so expensive that only rich countries can afford it. Poor countries can
hardly suffer it with an outsized secret service, the censorship, the
permanent control, the worries, the suspicion, the narrowness, the
closeness, the ignorance. [Remarks to Fourth Business Forum Conference,
Jerusalem, February 28, 1994]

Our forefathers were tourist oriented! They built pyramids, holy places.
[Speech to Council of the Socialist International, Lisbon, October 6, 1993]

(Denying the Arab charge that Israel wants to dominate the economies of the
Middle East) Essentially, for most of the countries in this region, there is
no substantive economy only poverty, so there is nothing to dominate.
[Speech to Jerusalem Business Conference, October 29, 1995]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Jew
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ich bin ein Bayer. (I am a Bavarian) [Lecture delivered to the Seidel
Foundation, April 5, 1994, Munich]
(Peres was apparently unaware that 'Ich bin ein Bayer' was Hitlers's usual
finale to his speeches in the "bierstuben" of Munich.)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Middle East Expert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[In Gaza] a "dynamic reconstruction has started"... Women are throwing away
their veils and are going swimming in the sea." [Interview, Die Welt
(Berlin), July 14, 1995]

Fundamentalism is a protest, not an alternative. And peace is an
alternative, not a protest. That is the difference. [Briefing to Foreign
Journalists, June 8, 1993]

[Referring to Hamas] Their whole existence is based on unreasonableness. So
what do they need to win [an election] for? [Middle East Quarterly, March
1995, p. 76]

The Middle East was a complex place for three basic reasons: The conflict
was unprecedented, deep, full of emotion and full of military strength and
confrontation. Secondly, the number of participants in this conflict was
large and varied and different. And, thirdly, it was basically a military
and political conflict rather than an economic cooperation and social
outlook. May I say that over the last year everything has changed
completely. [Speech at White House following meeting with Clinton and Crown
Prince Hassan, October 3, 1994]

Ultimately, if the leaders of the Arab states do not adopt democracy, they
will lose power. [New Middle East, p. 179]

(Asked about Arafat's Johannesburg speech stating that the peace with Israel
is temporary, similar to that between Mohammed and the Quraysh tribe): I am
not certain that Arafat and Mohammed resemble one another....I am not their
lawyer....I have no doubt, however, that he was drawn into a harmful speech.
[Interview on Kol Israel, May 23, 1994].

If you ask me today what is the nature of the conflict in the Middle East,
it is not a conflict between West and East, nor is it a conflict between
north and south, nor even is it a conflict between Jews and Arabs. It is a
single conflict, which divides the entire world, between yesterday and
tomorrow; between what was, and what is; between the dangers, the enemies,
the habits, the norms, the stigmas of the past, and the need to adjust our
entire way of thinking, our worldview, to a world that has undergone a
radical change, and is continuing to change. [Address to Zionist Executive,
June 23, 1993]

(Spoken at the secret signing in Norway of the Declaration of Principles)
The fate of Gaza can be like that of Singapore. From poverty to prosperity
in one sustained leap. [Battling for Peace, p. 302]

(Speaking at the anti-terrorism summit at Sharm el Sheikh in the wake of the
suicide attacks that killed 61 in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv) The dark days are
at an end. The shadows of its past are lengthening. The twilight of wars is
still red with blood, yet its sunset is inevitable and imminent....It will
be a new Middle East. [New York Times, March 14, 1996]

Re: .4

Mike,

Peres is known for his sharp language and clever quips. His opponents
view this as a form of demagoguery. The Likud used some of his quotes as
part of their election campaign. 

Peres was able to present every situation as a positive achievement for
his government especially when it involved the PLO agreements. Even the
terrorists bombings were used to show us how the PLO is now working
together with Israel in trying to apprehend the Hamas terrorists who had
become Arafat's enemies as well. In reality, however, Arafat has never
extradicted to Israel even a single terrorist,  and the overwhelming
majority of Hamas terrorists which he detained were later released. Even
the PLO covenant which calls for the destruction of Israel was never
actually repealed despite Peres' announcements to that effect.

Anyway, in a couple of weeks Peres will no longer head the government.
Already, I sense that the tune has changed.  After yesterday's terrorist
shooting of 2 civilians near Beit Shemesh and the killing of 5 soldiers
in Lebanon, I no longer heard the usually slogans of "Hamas wants to stop
the peace process - we must not give in to them" or "the PLO is working
together with Israeli security forces to apprehend the killers" etc.etc.

I'm not certain how Netanyahu will cope with all of the burning issues
which he will inherit from Peres. His first task is to halt the decline.
He then will have to look for a path leading to a true, stable peace with
the Palestinians - if such a path exists.

-Itzhak

                                    <<< Note 1500.3 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
                                                -< Israeli branches of government >-
    
    You can take a look at http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il which is the
    Foreign Ministery.
    
    Basically it is a parlimentary democracy with the members of the
    parliment (Knesset) being chosen by parties and the votes going to the
    parties. That gives you the Legislative branch.
    The Executive branch (government) is dependent upon a vote of
    confidence from the parliment. Until the elections of 1996 the Prime
    Minister was the leader of the party that was able to put together a
    coalition. Starting in 1996 the Prime Minister is elected directly.
    The Judicial branch is composed of Judges who are chosen for life by a
    committe composed of Politicians, Judical staff and members of the
    public.

    I think the goal Rabin and Peres had was and is a worthy one - peace and
    stability for Israel, and the rest of the Middle East.  Unfortunately, 
    I don't think that giving bits of land in exchange for peace treaties, 
    and capitulating to some of the demands of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish 
    organizations was or is going to achieve lasting peace and/or stability.  

    However, I think that changing directions now will have a greater 
    backlash than if Israel had never gone that direction (giving land & 
    capitulating to some demands).  Its going to be harder to take a hard 
    line now than it would have been to continue a hard line stance without 
    the intermission of seeking peace treaties based on land and Palestinian 
    self-rule.  I think the world is 'holding its breath' waiting to see
    what will happen.

    Praying for the peace of Jerusalem,

    Leslie

    PS.  Did anyone attend the Israel Independence Day celebrations in 
         Brookline, MA a couple or 3 weeks ago?  What was the mood there?

    Re: .5
    
    Itzhak, I now see why Peres and Bill Clinton were so diplomatic toward
    each other.
    
    Re: giving away the land
    
    It still makes me wonder about the acrostic found by the Jewish group
    in New York (Hasidic, I think) that does pattern searches on the Torah.  
    The Torah reading on the day Rabin was shot was Genesis 15:17 - which 
    deals with the sealing of the covenant with Abraham.  This group claimed 
    that if you alter the spaces in Hebrew (shift left by 3) you got the 
    phrase:
    
    "An evil fire (twice) into Rabin God decreed..."
    
    If you recall, it was 2 shots that killed Rabin too.  Coincidence?  
    Possibly.  Although, some rabbis say that coincidence is not a kosher word.
    
    Mike

    Normally I wouldn't post this, but I wanted to share the Farewell
    address of Shimeon Peres from the Knesset.
    
  =====================================================================
        Information Division, Israel Foreign Ministry - Jerusalem
              Mail all Queries to   [email protected]
                    URL: http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il
                         gopher://israel-info.gov.il
  =====================================================================

PRIME MINISTER PERES' KNESSET SPEECH, 17.06.96

Following is the text of outgoing Prime Minister and Defense Minister
Shimon Peres' speech to the opening session of the 14th Knesset today
(Wednesday), 17.06.96, in his capacity as the oldest Knesset member:

Your Excellency the President, Honored Knesset:

I greet the members of this house -- new and old -- and wish success to
the 14th Knesset, which embarks on its path today. We will still hold
sharp debates here over policy, legislation, and the remaining items on
our agenda. There are differences of opinion among us, and pointed
expression will -- no doubt -- be given to them from this podium.

However, I am convinced that above and beyond differences of opinion,
concern for the peace, security, and welfare of the State of Israel,
unites all of us. We are all interested in the good of the land and the
good of the people, each in his own way and beliefs. I hope that this
Knesset will conduct its work in a culture of debate worthy of its name,
with tolerance, and mutual respect. As our sages said: "May your friend's
honor be as dear to you as your own."

Mr. President,

The 13th Knesset's term of office was among the most stormy and decisive
in the history of the state.

In addition to fruitful legislative work, the Knesset was called upon to
approve historic decisions, whose influence on the image and future of
Israel and our relations with our Arab neighbors, is far-reaching. Indeed,
the Knesset faithfully fulfilled its duty as the supreme democratic
institution. And yet there was found one who -- in his baseness -- dared
to deny the democratic processes and the Knesset's decision, and tried to
defy them through the abominable murder of the one who was elected by the
people. Indeed, were it not for the murder, Yitzhak Rabin would have
happened to be here, as the oldest Knesset member, and would have
conducted the opening session of this Knesset.

From our sages, we have learned that Jerusalem was destroyed because of
baseless hatred. It is forbidden to have this destructive plague of
baseless hatred spread among us, and it must forever be forbidden to have
a human being -- especially a chosen leader -- become a victim because of
his political views.

Domestically, and in our relations with our neighbors, we must put moral
consideration at the head of our list of values. "Everything is in the
hands of Heaven," it says in Tractate B'rachot -- "except for the fear of
Heaven." And the fear of heaven is, first and foremost, the freedom of
choice and the sanctity of life.

It is unavoidable that the 14th Knesset will also be called upon to make
fateful and historic decisions. All the more so, I want to believe that
the peace process which we have started will continue and yield results
which will require this house to -- as in the past -- rise to its supreme
democratic role. The deep and painful debate amongst ourselves is not just
about Israel's political or economic path. It is also a discussion about
the deep significance of the heritage and culture of Israel.

The difference of opinion among the various branches of Israeli culture
must not lead to rifts and hatred. It must, if need be, be a fruitful and
genuine difference of opinion, which adds creative depth.

In any case, the decision must be made here, in this hall, by those who
have been elected by the people, and not in any other place, because the
Knesset -- and the Knesset alone -- is authorized to represent the will of
the people, to make the decisions which touch the course of this state,
its image, and its way of life. There is no alternative to the democratic
system. Only through it, will our unity as a people be maintained.

The 14th Knesset embarks on its path today, and with it a new system of
government will now prevail in Israel, which will naturally give rise to
the issue of balances among the branches of the government. Since
democracy is not just efficient authority, but also a network of delicate
balances within the executive authority and between it and the other
authorities. The Knesset must be prudent and guard these vital balances,
and, when necessary, even repair that which needs repair in order to
assure the stability and control of the democratic regime in Israel.

Mr. President,

Thirty one years ago, at the opening session of the 6th Knesset, my
teacher and mentor, David Ben-Gurion, stood on the dais as the oldest
Knesset member. It is difficult to say that I ever saw myself -- back then
-- standing before the house as the oldest Knesset member.

But I recall the words that Ben-Gurion said in that capacity, and to this
day, their meaning has not changed. He said:

"Our security problem is serious, and we must be in [a state of] constant
and increasing readiness, and must improve the IDF's deterrent force, but
we must not become alienated from the voices which -- here and there --
break forth from among the Arab peoples, which take a sober and realistic
view of Israeli-Arab relations and which demand the recognition of
Israel's existence and the arrangement of normal relations between the two
Semitic peoples. We must -- of course -- encourage any possible contact
with those among the Arabs who truly aspire to peace, because a pact of
peace and cooperation with all of our neighbors has been constant ideal."
Thus said Ben-Gurion.

I believe with all of my heart that indeed peace is our people's ideal. It
is the peak of Zionist realization. One hundred years after the appearance
of the modest booklet, The Jewish State, which heralded the most dramatic
change in the history of the nation for 2,000 years, Zionism is on the
verge of its greatest victory: the victory of peace. This is possible.
This is within reach. And if we will it, it is no dream.

Mr. President,

Please permit me to conclude my remarks on a personal note. Forty nine
years have passed since I was called by David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol
-- may peace be upon them -- from Kvutzat Alumot in the Lower Galilee, to
serve on the Haganah staff on Yarkon Street. Since then, I have been in
the nation's service, and for 37 years I have been a member of the
Knesset. I have tasted the good and the harsh of democracy in Israel, both
in government and in opposition. I have been given an unusual opportunity
to serve my people in various tasks, and I am profoundly grateful for this
-- to the people and its elected leaders.

I have seen the country struggling, mobilizing, fearful, isolated, and
threatened. But I have also seen it flourishing, growing, strengthening,
and rising from peak to peak. I was never inclined to be pessimistic or to
make falsehood my faith. Reality has justified the faith.

The nation has grown eight-fold. The quality of life in Israel is among
the highest in the world. The IDF has been marvelous in defending the
country and has won great victories, even though we will never forget the
high cost in casualties.

The land has become beautiful. It has become greener, spectacular in its
human and geographic wealth. Hebrew flows naturally as the language of
children, not just the language of prophets. The spoken and written
language unites the entire nature into one language. Great teachers,
leaders, and writers have sprung forth and raised a wonderful youth for
us. Most of the dreams which we dreamed have paled and become minuscule
compared to the reality which have created.

Life in Israel involves constant alert and concern, but there is no
justification for any pessimism. There is no model in the world for what
the Jewish people have done, in shaking-off the dust of exile and being
reborn from the ashes of the Holocaust. They have built a country;
gathered the exiles; revived their language and culture; made the desert
bloom; formed a producing economy; created an exemplary educational,
scientific and technological infrastructure; developed a network of health
and welfare services; constructed an independent and credible legal
system, prosperous agricultural sector and flourishing industry, and
institutes of learning and research which are among the most advanced in
the world; designed a dynamic democratic society and institutions of
governance grounded in the decision of the people, and all subject to the
rule of law.

Now we must build a peace that will reflect the completion of the Zionist
dream.

I have devoted most of my years to bringing security and peace, and I
intend to dedicate all my efforts from here on, with full energy and
strength, within and outside the Knesset, to peace.

Peace will transform the State of Israel into a light unto the nations,
into a magnet for all the exiles of our people.

Peace will bring justice and equality for all residents of Israel, Jews
and Arabs.

Peace will offer awesome momentum to Israel, and introduce an era of great
spiritual and cultural growth.

A peace that will position Israel as a source of blessing for the entire
region.

A peace in which Israel will reside forever.

As the Prophet said: "...the quiet and the confidence will be forever. And
my people shall live in a peaceful place and in secure dwellings."
    

Thank you for posting it.

Leslie

>    I don't think that giving bits of land in exchange for peace treaties, 
>    and capitulating to some of the demands of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish 
>    organizations was or is going to achieve lasting peace and/or stability.  

When you have two different groups of people both claiming the same piece
of land, you will not have peace or stability until one side either gives
up on the idea of using violence to obtain its claim or is exterminated.

Personally, as an American taxpayer, I would be glad to see more Israeli
settlements built on Arab land, because maybe, just maybe, it would cause
our Congress to WAKE UP and cut most of the THREE BILLION DOLLARS in aid
we give to Israel (nearly 1/4th of our total foreign aid budget).

See http://www.info.usaid.gov/eesi/text/over/over6.html

/john

    May we be never so foolish as to turn our back on Israel.

>Personally, as an American taxpayer, I would be glad to see more Israeli
>settlements built on Arab land, because maybe, just maybe, it would cause
>our Congress to WAKE UP and cut most of the THREE BILLION DOLLARS in aid
>we give to Israel (nearly 1/4th of our total foreign aid budget).

	C'mon.  This is just a will-of-the-wisp viewed that way. It's
	much more complex than you make it sound.

	Whatever you think of foreign aid, etc.: virtually all 
	of this 3 billion dollars is *required* (by condition of US government)
	to be spent only on US-sourced products and services. That is,
	the Israeli government does not see the money; no money actually
	moves. Rather, the aid is almost all in the form of "credits" to buy
	American (only) goods and services.

	The money does *not* "disappear". It is generally spent on
	clothing, house building, rents, TV sets, cars, McDonald's hamburgers, 
	etc., in the open *American* marketplace, by American workers who 
	receive it in their pay envelopes from American employers. (Granted, 
	of course, some money is retained as profits by the American companies 
	involved plus their suppliers and subcontractors. Some of that money 
	is paid out in dividends to shareholders.)

	It is rather strange to view this as "foreign aid". You, Mr. 
	American Taxpayer, are in fact an unwitting party to a US Government 
	scheme to provide some indirect additional income "aid" to some 
	various segments of US industry (while not making it an "official"
	part of the US defense budget, etc.)

	Hence, this "aid" could be far more properly called "US domestic
	company aid"  (though it is called by another name).

	If such "aid" is cut, and the amount is re-budgeted for another
	US government expense (goods and services purchased in the good
	ole US of A). No impact occurs to the US as a whole; the only thing 
	that changes is the names of the contractors with whom the money is
	spent!  I'm not sure where (or if) $3 billion dollars shows up
	on *any* actual accounting line when/if the aid were to be cut.

	Now, the entire "aid" item may be cut from the US Federal Budget
	in an attempt to "balance the budget" or "restrict the deficit".
	This means that the congressmen voting to cut it will afterwards
	have to explain why they voted for a loss of jobs in their
	constituencies. Seems like a rather unlikely cut, what?

	All this said, I am also against this aid in the sense that
	we tie down our independence by accepting it...

	NB: I don't know how the specific "aid" arrangements work with
	other governments. I only know what happens here.

	(In a sense, a similar thing happened with the Apollo program. 
	in the 1960's. People complained that $20 billion was spent, somehow
	as if the money was put into a box and blasted to the moon and lost
	forever. Rather, the $20 billion was spent almost entirely with 
	American aerospace contractors; a lot of it found its way into lots 
	of American workers' pay envelopes.)


Don Feinberg	

>When you have two different groups of people both claiming the same piece
>of land, you will not have peace or stability until one side either gives
>up on the idea of using violence to obtain its claim or is exterminated.

That's why Peres' dream of a New Middle East based on a 'peace' treaty
with the PLO didn't stand a chance. The PLO never abandoned the idea of
using violence to "liberate Palestine". On the contrary, the Oslow
agreements only reinforced their belief that violence pays. 

Itzhak

As someone thousands of miles from the scene I have what I think is a 
n unorthodox view of the election results.

1 - The "peace process" was severely flawed from the beginning.  A 
"contract" is where you have two equal partners.  It is not where one 
gives and the other takes.

2 - The Arab community was severely divided before.  This means that 
any "peace" was not widely enforceable.

3 - The election of a "hard-liner" is producing a unity of sorts 
within the Arab community.  They also now realize that they, too, 
must give to achieve a peace.  

4 - If such a "peace" is achieved it will (a) be more equitable and 
(b) be more widely enforceable and hence have a better chance of 
lasting.

Thus, I believe that the election of a hard-liner has resulted in the 
best chance for peace in the region.

Unorthodox, but how I see it.

Shelly

> Unorthodox, but how I see it.

Not so unorthodox...  you have more or less summarized the Likud position
on the peace process. 

My own opinion is that peace with the PLO is a contradiction in terms.
The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) has never abandoned it's goal
of destroying the Jewish state. Its participation in any sort of peace
process with Israel is nothing but a tactical move for achieving that
goal. To reach a true peace we need a different Palestinian leadership.

    how is the formation of the new Parliament coming along?

>    how is the formation of the new Parliament coming along?

The new Knesset (Parliament) is already in effect and has already
approved Netanyahu's government.  There are still 2 election related
issues which have not been resolved.

- The Labor party has contested the validity of the election results. If
  they can prove that there were enough irregularities at the polling
  stations to have possibly affected the election results, then new
  elections may be called.  The chances of this happening are slim and
  even so, new election will probably be held only in the few polling
  areas that are under suspicion. The court is scheduled to hear the
  petition on July 4th.

- Ariel Sharon has not yet received a ministerial position. Sharon and
  Netanyahu are currently negotiating the details of a new Ministry of
  National Infrastructure for Sharon. 
  
Itzhak

    Re:  A "contract" is where you have two equal partners.  It is not
    where one gives and the other takes.
    
    The Palestinians have already lost more than half of the land;  they're
    the ones "giving" as Israel swallows up more and more by expanding
    the settlements Begin promised to stop as far back as Camp David.
    
    Re: The Arab community was severely divided before.  This means that
    any "peace" was not widely enforceable.
        
    Those chaotic Arabs.  Remind me again about the overwhelming
    unity the Israeli voting public recently displayed.  Strange, I don't
    hear you saying that that hair's breadth margin makes the new Israeli
    government's policies "not widely enforceable."
    
    Re: They also now realize that they, too, must give to achieve
    a peace.                                   
    
    See above.
    
    Re: If such a "peace" is achieved it will (a) be more equitable and
    (b) be more widely enforceable and hence have a better chance of
    lasting.
    
    I applaud your support for a fifty-fifty division of the land.  I
    assume you also support the right of return for Palestinians, as
    Israel now extends to those of Jewish descent.
    
                                 

>    Re:  A "contract" is where you have two equal partners.  It is not
>    where one gives and the other takes.
>
>    The Palestinians have already lost more than half of the land;  they're
>    the ones "giving" as Israel swallows up more and more by expanding
>    the settlements Begin promised to stop as far back as Camp David.
>

Let's say that you had an argument over the ownership of a parcel of land
with a fat cat and went before the courts.
The courts in their infinite wisdom decided to divide it 50-50. Your rival decided
to bump you off and take it all. You, howevere were able to catch him in the act
and stay alive. In the process you took over some of his land to better protect
yourself. Now he comes and says, "I will stop trying to kill you if you give back
the land". Are you going to believe him ?
On the 29-Nov-1947 the UN decided to partition the land. (And remember that a
large part of the Jewish part was to be the arid Negev desert)
The Arab inhabitants and neighbouring countries decided that they wanted it all.
In the war that they started, Israel succeeded in getting slightly more defensible
borders.
For the next 18-19 years Arab terrorists crossed the border maiming and killing
innocent civilians by design. Syria shelled civilian settlements as a matter of course.
Egypt closed the straits of Tiran in 1956. After Israel captured the Sinai, the UN
said "give it back, we will watch over things". In 1967 Egypt goes ahead and does
exactly the same thing. (The UN moves out without a whimper) This time Israel doesn't
give back what it has captured, and now has much more defensible borders.

For the sake of argument let's "ignore" 4000 years of history and yearning for the
land of Israel. Why should Israel trust the big bullies around not to repeat their
performance ? The PLO was established in 1965, BEFORE the 1967 war. It's charter has
never actually been abolished. Words of hate still spew from Arab Leader's lips.
It's not as if the big bully is all sugar and flowers now, he still is acting like
our enemy.

It is very easy to speak from afar about right and wrong. When you worry more about
your garden and pets than about your children going to war. When your house shaking
means an earthquake, not some bombs or missiles exploding nearby. When the last time
your nation was really invaded was in 1812. When you have two vast oceans on both sides.

And if a contract is both give and take, where is the give by the Arabs (Assuming we give
back ALL the land) ? Peace ? Something that should be the default ?

>    Re: The Arab community was severely divided before.  This means that
>    any "peace" was not widely enforceable.
>
>    Those chaotic Arabs.  Remind me again about the overwhelming
>    unity the Israeli voting public recently displayed.  Strange, I don't
>    hear you saying that that hair's breadth margin makes the new Israeli
>    government's policies "not widely enforceable."

In the 1992 elections, Bill Clinton garnered something around 42% of the public
vote. Did that make his policies "not widely enforceable" ?
It may seem so obvious to you, but "Israel is a democracy". I know that the US is
one also, but how many of Israel's neighbours can make the same claim. Don't
bother to tell me. None. There are a few who allow somewhat free elections to
the legislature (Egypt, Jordan) - who by the way have diplomatic relations with 
Israel. Most of them however, if you say something that somebody doesn't like,
you disappear. Yes, just like that. In the past 19 years Israel has had 3 turnovers
of power (and sadly one political assasination). No civil war, no wide-spread arrests,
no nothing. At the most, replacement of various appointed public officials. In Israel's
neighbours, changing of the guard is usually accompanied by a lot of blood.

Don't try and categorize the Israeli voting public as choosing between peace and no peace.
It is choosing between taking more or less chances for peace. And given my first few
paragraphs, there are quite a few chances to be taken. What chances are being taken 
by the Arabs ?

Lest you mistake me for a war-monger - I wish for peace. Three times a day we pray for G-d
to make peace. But it should be a peace that will last, not just a phase in Israel's
destruction.

I am young, but I have seen and gone through much that I pray that my children should not
have to go through. My children should not have to go out to war, they should not have
to loose friends to bullets, they should not have to worry about their children dying in
defense of their country. If only we were to hear such voices from the other side.

Perhaps, if you came to visit Israel you would see that almost all Israelis WANT peace,
and are just worried about the chances. You would have no problem discussing and
criticizing optinions. I dare you, nay, double dare you to go to Gaza/Damascaus/Whatever
and do the same. I dare you to find many people come out in public and say they want
peace, I dare you to criticize and stay alive. Even in the countries with whom we have
peace, actors who visit Israel are barred from their profession, the various bar
associations ex-communicate anyone who voices support for Israel, and the list goes on
and on....

		Yaacov
    

C'mon Karen - give me a break!

Let's take this point by point and then I'll give you my vision 
of what I see can finally happen.

>    Re:  A "contract" is where you have two equal partners.  It is not
>    where one gives and the other takes.
>    
>    The Palestinians have already lost more than half of the land;  they're
>    the ones "giving" as Israel swallows up more and more by expanding
>    the settlements Begin promised to stop as far back as Camp David.
>    

(a) What is formally Israel was obtained by a combination of purchase and
abandonment.  Land was purchased from the Arabs prior to 1947 and then was 
claimed when the Palestinians abandoned the land at the insistence of the 
neighboring Arabs.  Should the Israelis who own and developed the land "give
it back"?
(b) Jerusalem was obtained via conquest in a war STARTED BY THE ARABS. Tough!
(c) The settlements are another matter that I will discuss later in this note.

>    Re: The Arab community was severely divided before.  This means that
>    any "peace" was not widely enforceable.
>        
>    Those chaotic Arabs.  Remind me again about the overwhelming
>    unity the Israeli voting public recently displayed.  Strange, I don't
>    hear you saying that that hair's breadth margin makes the new Israeli
>    government's policies "not widely enforceable."
>    
Ridiculous.  How can you even compare the two?  When was the last time there 
was a coup in Israel?  It was a VOTE in a DEMOCRACY.  By "not widely enforceable"
I clearly meant that if one govenment does not sign a treaty then they will 
feel that they have a "license" to continue aggression against Israel and to 
support further terrorist acts.  By unifying them, this likelihood is greatly 
diminished.  If Israel signs such a peace treaty (as the result of a 50-50 vote) 
will the other half feel that it can violate such a treaty?  Obviously not.
Enough said!

>    Re: They also now realize that they, too, must give to achieve
>    a peace.                                   
>    
>    See above.
>    
See above.

>    Re: If such a "peace" is achieved it will (a) be more equitable and
>    (b) be more widely enforceable and hence have a better chance of
>    lasting.
>    
>    I applaud your support for a fifty-fifty division of the land.  I
>    assume you also support the right of return for Palestinians, as
>    Israel now extends to those of Jewish descent.

(a) I never said a fift-fifty division of land.
(b) I do NOT support the "right of return" for Palestinians.
(c) I also do NOT support the "right of return" for Jews.

Now, what is my vision?  First, let us get down to the non-negotiables on both sides.

Israelis:
(a) Jerusalem is part of Israel.  No internationalization.  No division.  Any less 
would bring about the immediate fall of the government.
(b) Defensible borders.

Palestinians:
(a) No enclaves of Israeli control within their borders.
(b) Syria: Golan Heights cannot be controlled by Israel

That said I see the following ultimate solution:
(a) Jerusalem is part of Israel.
(b) Golan Heights under international control (with forces there).
(c) All settlements dismantled.  (Not everyone likes compromise but 
this one seems necessary).
(d) TRUE enforcement by the Palestinians against terrorism.  (Otherwise war results).
This last item is the real reason why I am hopeful of the result of an Arab 
unification.

Karen,  please try to see things as they are.  It is time to drive a stake into the 
ground and say "How can we best get to a true peace from THIS point?"

Shelly

    Re: .19
    
    Karen, the Palestinians already have their own state where they are a
    majority.  It's called Jordan.
    
    regards,
    Mike

re Mike Heiser

_Jordan_?

Why should the Palestinians be forced to leave the land they've lived on
for as long as (or longer than) anyone else who's living there?

/john

    You can't have 2 states within the same borders.  They already have a
    state.  They can stay as long as they obey the laws of the land.
    
    Mike

Israel and Palestine are no more "within the same borders" than the United
States and Canada.

/john

Sorry,
	What am I missing in this "borders" stuff?  How did it begin 
and what are each of you saying?  (..Maybe it's just the end of the 
week but I am missing your points)

Shelly

    >                -< Borders were defined by the United Nations >-
    
    Since when is the United Nations more important than G-d's Word?

re .27

Are you claiming that borders of nation states should be defined by the
Bible?

Who, then, interprets the meaning of the Bible?  Orthodox Jews?  Reform
Jews?  Palestinian Christians?  Islamic teachers?

Who decides who God's actual faithful people are, and thus who is
entitled to the land?

Are you saying that the descendants of the early Christians (today's
Palestinian Christians, who are also descended from Jacob and from
Peter and the thousands of Jews who became followers of Jesus) are
not entitled to share Jerusalem with the other descendants of Jacob,
who have also been faithful to God, even if they have not accepted
your theology about the person of the Messiah?  And what of those
descendants of Jacob and Abraham whose parents were persuaded to
follow God through the teachings of Islam?  While some may rightly
believe that Judaism and Christianity are closer to the "right"
way to follow God, who, in this life, will decide?

Are you saying that there should be some theological test for who
should be allowed to live there?

Some way has to be found to allow Jerusalem and all of the land to be
equitably shared among all the people there.  If that means creating
borders between a Jewish and a Palestinian state, it is unfortunate
that the people there cannot "all be one", but forcing the descendants
of people who have lived there for four thousand years to leave is not
the answer, not the way of peace.

/john

John,

	I absolutely do NOT agree with .27.  However, the only 
"sharing" of Jerusalem that I would see happening is being part of 
Israel with free access to Moslem holy sites accorded all (except 
those that are known to be part of terroist organizations).

	When under Arab control jews had no access to their sites. 
However, I don't see that happening when it is part of Israel with a 
friendly neighbor next door.

Shelly

Again,
	What are you two saying?

>	What are you two saying?

I'm saying something very different from Mike.

1. There is a United Nations partition of Palestine into two states:
   an Israeli state and a Palestinian state.

2. The origin of the Palestinians is not clear enough to allow a simplistic
   application of Bible-defined ownership of the land.  The Palestinians
   may very well be equally entitled, in the Bible, as descendents of
   Jacob, to share the land with European/American Jews making aliyah.

3. Jerusalem must be internationalized in a way which makes it open to
   all, and allows it to be the capital of both nations.

4. The statement that the Palestinians have their own country where they
   are in the majority, Jordan, is bogus.

   In 1948, there were about 1,316,000 Palestinians, only 260,000 of whom
   lived in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

   Today, there are, indeed, 1,200,000 Palestinian refugees in Jordan,
   but they are refugees and do not have Jordanian citizenship, even
   if they do have Jordanian travel documents.

Israelis and Palestinians of all faiths are going to have to learn to live
together as neighbors and to share resources: land, water, and holy sites,
on a fair and friendly basis.

Or there will not be peace.

/john

BTW, see http://www.mapam.org.il/chap2.html

/john

    John, the U.S. is also an amalgamation but everyone here still has to
    follow the laws of the land and respect the facts this country was
    founded on.  If not, they probably wouldn't enjoy living here.  There
    is no reason why Israel should be held to a different standard.
    
    Mike

re .32

Mike, go read the history of Palestine since 1947.

You will learn that the United Nations created the borders with the intention
of there being a Jewish nation and an Arab nation.

The West Bank is _not_ part of the country of Israel.

Are there _any_ countries that recognize the Israeli annexation of East
Jerusalem?

The Palestinians have every right to form a nation of their own within
the land which was not given to Israel by the United Nations.

/john

There was a pie.

Boy A said to Boy B -- "Let's divide it half and half"

Boy B said "No, I want it all"

Boy B took a rock and trew it at Boy A in order to drive him away.

Boy A fought back and forced Boy B to withdraw.

Boy A then says to Boy B, "Look, for sake of peace I will give you 
almost all of what you would have had before.  However, the marachino 
cherry in the center is too important to me.  Since you attacked me 
and I fought back and won, I intend to keep it.  You have a choice.  
You can stop fighting and take all that you would have had if you had 
not been so greedy with the exception of the cherry, or you can have 
nothing  -- your choice"

What should Boy B do?

Realize that the problem isn't as easy as pie.

On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly's resolution on the partition of
Palestine stated: "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus
separatum under a special international regime, and shall be administered
by the United Nations..."

On December 9, 1949, the General Assemply again affirmed its call for the
internationalization of Jerusalem.

Israel's annexation of Jerusalem makes Israel an outlaw among nations.

/john

Re: .20
>2. The origin of the Palestinians is not clear enough to allow a simplistic
>   application of Bible-defined ownership of the land.  The Palestinians
>   may very well be equally entitled, in the Bible, as descendents of
>   Jacob, to share the land with European/American Jews making aliyah.

The acknowleged biblical ancestor of the Arabs is Ishmael, Jacob's uncle.
The biblical story makes it very clear that the land of Israel was given to
the followers of Joshua. In no way can the Palestinian's share in any claim
to the land based on the Bible-defined ownership. You got the geneology wrong.

>4. The statement that the Palestinians have their own country where they
>   are in the majority, Jordan, is bogus.

My understanding is that the partitioning of Palestine by the UN created a Jewish
state (Israel) and an Arab state (Jordan). Jordan was supposed to receive any Arab
refugees who found living in a Jewish state unacceptable. However, all Arab states
refused to accept any Arab refugees from Palestine in order to create the present
refugee crisis.

Furthermore, there were "territories" that were not given to either party. There
were supposed to be negotiations between the Arabs and the Israelis to decide the
fate of the territories, but the Arabs refused to engage in any such negotiations.
In fact the Arabs, de facto, annexed the territories for themselves. Then they
cried "foul" when the Israelis occupied the territories. However, the Israeli
occupation has brought about the desired goal, formal negotiations with the Arabs.
Why is Israel to be criticized for occupying the territories while the Arab
occupation of the same territories goes unmentioned? I think I see anti-Israel
media bias at work here.

Re .36
>On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly's resolution on the partition of
>Palestine stated: "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus
>separatum under a special international regime, and shall be administered
>by the United Nations..."

Where was the U.N. when the Jews were being prevented from visting their holy
sites while the Arabs had free accesss to theirs? I'd say the U.N. has
neglected its duty in that regard. How long does a nation have to wait for the
U.N. to sit on its hands before it does the job itself?

Dave

> On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly's resolution on the partition of
You take the best deal you can get.  Half a loaf (or pie) is better than 
none.

> On December 9, 1949, the General Assemply again affirmed its call for the
> internationalization of Jerusalem.

Why did it have to reaffirm that stance?  Could it be that it was because 
Jews were not allowed into the Arab controlled part?  Are Arabs now allowed 
in Jerusalem now that it is controlled, no a part of, Israel?

> Israel's annexation of Jerusalem makes Israel an outlaw among nations.
And Syria vis a vis all of Lebanon?
And Iraq vis a vis Kuwait, or the Kurds, or Iran
And Iran vis a vis Iraq
And Libya (wow!)
And the cheering Jordanians as missiles rained down on Israel in a war of 
which they were no part
And the SILENT Jordanian government to the overflight of missiles but a 
protest to the overflight of retaliatory bombers
And the US vis a vis Mexico (circa 1850)... or Spain (circa 1900)... or the 
American Indians (all along)
Or how many others?

Basically this is different in that the loser was the one to not play by the 
rules and NOW wants to invoke the rulebook.  As I said a few replies back -- 
TOUGH!  Put this in perspective.

    >               -< Your knowledge of history seems to be lacking >-
    
    The United Nations has little to do with the several millenia before
    1947-48.  If the UN went back to the Babylonian Empire, you might have
    a better case.
    
    Mike

>Why is Israel to be criticized for occupying the territories while the Arab
>occupation of the same territories goes unmentioned? I think I see anti-Israel
>media bias at work here.
    
    Dave, you just hit the bulls-eye with that last sentence!
    
    regards,
    Mike

>The acknowleged biblical ancestor of the Arabs is Ishmael, Jacob's uncle.
>The biblical story makes it very clear that the land of Israel was given to
>the followers of Joshua. In no way can the Palestinian's share in any claim
>to the land based on the Bible-defined ownership. You got the geneology wrong.

The Palestinians are not clearly of only Arab descent.  They are also in
part descendents of first century Jews who were not dispersed by the Romans.

>My understanding is that the partitioning of Palestine by the UN created a
>Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Jordan).

Your understanding is wrong.  The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan already existed,
east of the Jordan river.  The Palestinian state that the U.N. created
included the West Bank and Gaza, and quite a bit of additional territory
as well.

The surrounding Arab countries attacked.  Jordan annexed the West Bank
(and their king, the grandfather of the present king, was assassinated by
Palestinians for preventing them from forming a Palestinian state).  Egypt
took control of, but never annexed, the Gaza.

>Where was the U.N. when the Jews were being prevented from visting their holy
>sites while the Arabs had free accesss to theirs?

Doing the same thing it's doing today: objecting and calling for negotiation.

/john

Re Dave Gross:

>Why is Israel to be criticized for occupying the territories while the Arab
>occupation of the same territories goes unmentioned? I think I see anti-Israel
>media bias at work here.

The Arabs are not currently occupying any of the territories given to Israel
in the partition plan.  There is nothing unmentioned.  Yes, Jordan did attack
and occupy Jerusalem.  And then there was an armistice agreement which set
up the temporary borders.  Jordan has given up its claim to the West Bank
in order to allow the Palestinians to form their own state.  A comprehensive
peace has to allow the Palestinians to have their own state on their own
land: the West Bank and Gaza.

Re Mike Heiser:
    
>    Dave, you just hit the bulls-eye with that last sentence!
>    anti-Semitism at its ugliest

Mike, the Palestinians are Semites, too.

/john

See

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/
      cmenas/StudyUnits/israeli-palestinian_conflict/teacherlesson3.html

The entire partition resolution:

  http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/peace/part181.html

re: .43

I read that "lesson".  I am thoroughly distressed that our 
universities are "teaching" this subject with such a strong 
and obvious Anti-Israeli slant.  

Shelly

    I didn't bother.

    
    Re: .42 
    
    "arabs are Semites too"
    
    Oldest and stupidest non-sequitor in human history.
    "Jew hatred" suit you better? Fine. The media are
    dominated by Jew-hatred.
    
    

So anything which asserts the rights of the Palestinians to live in Palestine
(where they have lived on for thousands of years), to form the Palestinian
state which the United Nations partition plan envisioned, and calls both the
Jews and Palestinians to move toward this peacefully is "Jew-hatred"?

I think not.  And those who think so are not working for peace.

/john

    (has anyone else noticed that the two main protagonists here are not of
    the [modern] Jewish Faith?)
    
    
    boy! am I gonna get flamed over that one ;')

So?

We're discussing the status of Jerusalem and the area around it, and the
peace process between the Christians, Jews, Moslems, and others who live
in the area.

/john

I looked up "Jordan" using Microsoft Bookshelf last night. Using
"pre-existing" to describe the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the
context of 1948 is somewhat of a stretch. Britain took control of
the Palestine Mandate in 1920. Prior to that, the area was part of
the Ottoman Empire (no mention of an independant kingdom in the
region). In 1921, Abdullah (grandfather of the present king) was
installed by Britain as emir of an autonomous Transjordan. Britain
recognized the independance of Jordan in 1928 but retained partial
control until 1946.An independent kingdom was proclaimed in 1946
and the name changed to the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".

Abdullah was son of the king of Hejaz, a region of northwest Saudi
Arabia that includes the cities of Mecca and Medina.

Sketchy as this history may be, it appears to me that Jordan
preexisted Israel by all of 2 years! Wow!

I also searched for information about the Palestinians. Regarding
the ancestral makeup of the Palestinians I found nothing useful.
Apparently, my sources at home regard the Palestinians as primarily
Arab. The UN partition of the Palestine Mandate in 1948 was supposed
to create a Palestinian state in the Territories. However, Jordan
annexed the West Bank in 1948, effectively preventing the creation
of the Palestinian state.

Dave

Re: .49

Two? I thought there were three.

I don't know about John Covert or Mike Hesser but I am Jewish.

Oh, and in this one I agree with John.

Shelly

Make that four. ....and I would guess that some with the name of Dave 
Gross is also Jewish.

Shelly

Full name: David Ashkenazy Gross. I can't forget where my
ancestors came from.

Dave

    I don't see exactly what your lineage has to do with this, but I do
    have Jewish ancestors.  John should know better to make the claims he
    does given historical facts, logic, and his faith.
    
    Mike

re .55
>    I don't see exactly what your lineage has to do with this

Right on!

>I don't see exactly what your lineage has to do with this

I thought lineage granting land rights was _your_ argument.  And my
response is that, as you have demonstrated by claiming Jewish ancestry
for yourself, almost anyone can claim to have _some_ Jewish ancestry,
especially the people who have lived there for thousands of years!

>given historical facts

The historical facts are that the United Nations partitioned Palestine
into two states with Jerusalem a separate international entity, as shown
on the map in

	http://bulova.zko.dec.com/group/covert/partition.jpg

Did you look at the map?

While it is unrealistic to expect a reversion to those borders, the
creation of the Palestinian state and a fair arrangement for sharing
Jerusalem are a legitimate international demand, given historical facts.

/john

    lineage/ancestry <> historical possession
    
    United Nations <> G-d
    
    the argument is that the land was given to them by G-d thousands of
    years before the U.N. existed.  There are quite few areas where
    Americans think the U.N. is a waste (and even refuse to acknowledge
    their 'authority'), why should this area be any different?  the new kid
    on the block just can't show up and expect to undo thousands of years
    of history.
    
    Mike

>    the argument is that the land was given to them by G-d

Given to WHOM?

To you, too, as someone with Jewish ancestors?

If so, then why not also to Palestinian Hanan Ashrawi?  Her
great-great-great-great-...-great-grandfather may well have
been the Galilean Jew Simon called Peter or some other Jew.

/john

    >Given to WHOM?
    
    Read the Torah + the Book of Joshua.

re .60

Then answer my question about how to apply what that says to the two
situations in my previous reply: (1) yourself and (2) a hypothetical
Palestinian, both with some percentage of Jewish ancestry, and how that
relates to your exegesis of the books you reference.

/john

Re .61
>Then answer my question about how to apply what that says to the two
>situations in my previous reply: (1) yourself and (2) a hypothetical
>Palestinian, both with some percentage of Jewish ancestry, and how that
>relates to your exegesis of the books you reference.

Esau was Jacob's *twin* brother. As the elder twin, Esau possessed the
"birthright". Yet Jacob possessed a special something, call it the
"Jewish spirit", and therefore the birthright was transferred to him and
he was destined to become the ancestor of the Jewish people and inherit
the Torah. Likewise, those today that possess the Jewish spirit (arguing
theologically) are entitled to inherit the Torah and its promises.

On a practical level, the Jewish people need a Jewish state somewhere in
the world and Israel is in the most likely location. Very few countries
have ever accepted Jews as citizens over the course of history. Many
countries of Europe used to exact a special "Jew tax" for the right to
live within their borders. The history of the Jews is replete with
expulsions and pogroms. The motto "never again" summarizes the Jewish
response to the most recent holocaust and explains the need for a strong
Jewish state.

Whether a person should be considered a Jew according to Jewish law or
according to Hitler's law can still be debated, but the Palestinians
do not identify themselves as Jewish, nor can they be considered Jewish
by either definition.

Dave

re .62

Then are you saying that the Palestinian state has no right to exist in any
part of the land the Palestinians were living on in 1947?

Are you saying that the Jews, returning from Europe, were authorised by God
to conquer the entire territory and to ignore the will of the international
community that the land should be shared by both the current Palestinian
residents and the Jewish immigrants through an equitable partition?

Are you saying that there is no chance for peace unless the Palestinians
agree to this subjugation and/or expulsion?

/john

    John -
    
    Re: Jewish Ancestry and claim to the land.
    
    You would be correct in saying that the Arabs (or anyone else) have a
    claim based upon lineage ONLY if they claimed a right based upon that
    lineage. I have yet to hear anyone other than the Jews make a claim
    upon the land based upon their lineage and Bibical promises. Have you ?
    
    Re: The map. I took a look at the map just to refresh my memory.
    Perhaps you should take another look at the map and ask yourself
    whether the people in the yellow areas (mostly the yellow arid Negev
    desert) should agree to be so vulnerable to those that hold the high
    ground (The green area) especially after they tried to utilize their
    advantage to destroy the Jewish state. The lines that were drawn MIGHT
    work if everybody wants peace. Since actions have proven otherwise, do
    you think it is reasonable to expect the Jews to go back to that
    vulnerable position ? I notice that your map doesn't have a scale.
    Would you be willing to live in Nashua knowing that in Merrimack there
    is a country doing it's best to destroy you ? (And here the topography
    might protect you a bit...)

I have not suggested a return to the borders in the original partition plan.
I presented the original partition plan because misleading information was
being posted concerning the borders and other aspects of the plan.

The borders that the international community now expect to come into being
are the current borders, with some form of sharing of Jerusalem and some
agreement between Israel and Syria on the Golan, possibly including a
purchase of part of the Golan for a fair price.

/john

John,
	I agree with you in .65 only if by "sharing" you mean that 
the (non-terrorist) Palestinians have right of access to their holy 
sites in the Israeli capital of Jerusalem.  Don't underestimate 
Jerusalem's significance to the Jewish population.

Shelly

The Israeli government seized Jerusalem by military force.

Yes, it was being held by an outlaw nation, which had ignored the
international mandate to make Jerusalem an international city.

But unless that mandate is implemented by the State of Israel, or
some other settlement is negotiated which is acceptable to all
parties, Israel remains the same kind of outlaw that the U.S.S.R.
was when it held the Baltic States and which Iraq was when it held
Kuwait.

/john

re .63

>Then are you saying that the Palestinian state has no right to exist in any
>part of the land the Palestinians were living on in 1947?
You asked for exegesis; I attempted exegesis. There are other considerations
I ignored for the sake of a simple presentation. For example, the theological
reason Jews were expelled from Israel in the first place was because they sinned.
As long as Jews continue to sin, are we entitled to return to Israel? I did not
address the question of Palestinian rights; only the question of the Jewish claim.

In my opinion, the theological claim to the land is of no practical use. In fact,
it causes trouble when it comes time to negotiate the division between Palestinian
land and Israeli land. I haven't stated my opinion before because it wasn't relevant.

However, are YOU saying the UN had no right to create a Jewish state because
some Palestinians were living in the region at the time?
 
>Are you saying that the Jews, returning from Europe, were authorised by God
>to conquer the entire territory and to ignore the will of the international
>community that the land should be shared by both the current Palestinian
>residents and the Jewish immigrants through an equitable partition?
The mere existence of Israel is considered, by many Jews, to be a miracle from G-d.
The Jewish refugees from Europe (OK - I'm changing the focus from 1948 to 1940.
I don't care.) had the choice of live in Israel or die.

It is a Jewish principle that G-d does not command us to do the impossible. The
continued existence of Israel requires peace with its neighbors. Even theologically,
that overrides the Biblical command to occupy the land (although some "ultraorthodox"
disagree). Israel has always sought peace with its neighbors. For the most part, the
response of the Arab neighbors has been war, terrorist action, boycott, and (until
very recently) refusal to negotiate. Israel very much wants an equitable partition
and I agree. What is needed in the region is stability; that is the really difficult
part of the negotiations. Look at your own map of the Territories. Neither the
boundaries of the "Jewish area" nor the "Arab area" appear to constitute borders for
a stable, defensible state. Jerusalem is deep inside the territory designated Arab.
Given the international track record on the subject, how can Israel assure continuing
Jewish access to the Jewish holy places without making some radical changes in the
boundaries? Nothing is going to be easy.

>Are you saying that there is no chance for peace unless the Palestinians
>agree to this subjugation and/or expulsion?
Israel has Arab citizens. In fact, the recent election was very close because of
the Arab vote. Jews and Arabs can get along with each other. What I AM saying is
that all the complaints concerning Israeli actions against Palestinians totally
ignore the Palestinian actions against Israelis. If you think car bombings at
crowded bus stops, shootings, stabbings, and stonings ought to be matters of concern,
where is any mention of them in the stuff you've been reading lately? I AM saying
there is no chance for peace unless the Palestinians agree that it is wrong to
continue terrorist actions against Jews. Why doesn't the PLO change its charter
to drop the clause concerning the destruction of the state of Israel? Why does
Arafat negotiate peace while telling his people it is merely another
step towards the destruction?

Dave

>The Israeli government seized Jerusalem by military force.
    
    Not exactly. The new city (West Jerusalem) was always Jewish and
    withstood an Arab siege in 1948. The old city was seized by force by
    Jordan - especially the Jewish Quarter in which a total massacare was
    narrowly averted.
    
>
>Yes, it was being held by an outlaw nation, which had ignored the
>international mandate to make Jerusalem an international city.
>
>But unless that mandate is implemented by the State of Israel, or
>some other settlement is negotiated which is acceptable to all
    
    Throughout history nation after nation who held Jerusalem did their best
    to keep Jews out of Jerusalem. Why should the Jews trust somebody else
    to ensure that they have access ? As part of the peace process Jews are
    supposed to have access to various Holy sites in the West bank/Judea &
    Samaria. This is yet another of the things not happenning.
    
    Today, however people of ALL religions have access to Jerusalem. There
    even was a publicized visit by Libiyan pilgrims a few years ago. The
    non-publicized visits happen all the time. Contrast that with the
    period after 1967 where the only view of the Wailing Wall was from a
    small window on top of a tower on Mount Zion.
    Thinking a bit more, the ONLY religion that does not have full access
    are the Jews !! If a Jew starts praying on the Temple Mount he is
    immediately arrested. (If he isn't beaten first by the Wakf).
    
    The only thing that the UN could change would be for the worst, not for
    the better. History has shown that the UN is incapable of carrying out
    simple missions like keeping the straits of Tiran open to say nothing
    of free sailing through the Suez Canal. Why then could it be trusted to
    supervise a city that has 4000 years of history and religion flowing
    through it's stones ?
    
    Contrast Israels behaviour in allowing all religions to co-exist with
    the Arab stand on Mearat HaMachpela in Hevron. "Since it is a Mosque -
    no one from any other religion should be allowed in much less pray".
    
    
>parties, Israel remains the same kind of outlaw that the U.S.S.R.
>was when it held the Baltic States and which Iraq was when it held
>Kuwait.

    If you need to compare, it would be useful to find some less radical
    examples. I dare you to travel to Iraq and try to pray in a church (if
    you can find one). For that matter - what about the great US ally
    Saudia Arabia - great example of religious co-existance there....

>>The Israeli government seized Jerusalem by military force.
>    
>    Not exactly. The new city (West Jerusalem) was always Jewish

Not according to the U.N. Partition map; it was to be international.

/john

    John, your argument is as illogical as saying San Diego must be an
    international city because we took it by force from Mexico and Tijuana
    wants it back.  The U.S. also has its "Palestinians."  They're known
    here as Native American Indians.  We've taken their land by force and
    restricted them to "occupied territories" known as reservations.  Yet I
    don't see folks in your camp beating down the door so that they may get
    a fair shake.  Your argument is hypocritical.
    
    Mike

But that isn't the reason that Jerusalem was to be in international city.

The original agreement which created the State of Israel included the
provision that Jerusalem would be an international city.

If Israel refuses to abide by the agreement that Jerusalem should be
international, and that the Palestinians should be allowed to form a
Palestinian state, then there is no real reason that the other side
should agree to the existence of the Israeli state, either.

/john

    John -
    
    May I remind of the events between Nov-1947 and May-1948 ? The Jews
    accepted the UN decision, and the Arabs REJECTED it. Who knows where we
    might be if they hadn't rejected it but they DID. And now they want to
    turn history back after having been the agressor and loosing ? Why do
    you think that it should be done ?

I don't think it's dishonest to consider the Palestinian residents of the
area around Jerusalem to have been the victims of aggression by other Arab
nations and by radical elements among their own people.

A peace process requires giving by both sides.  The Palestinians have already
given (or lost) a large percentage of the land the partition plan intended
for them.

The internationalization of Jerusalem and the creation of a Palestinian
state are both reasonable demands.

/john

> The internationalization of Jerusalem and the creation of a Palestinian
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^
	      No!						Yes!
> state are both reasonable demands.
  ^^^^^     ^^^^
	     No!

Shelly

OK, how about a "Palestinian Capital Enclave" within Jerusalem?

/john

John, 
	I am beginning to feel like ex-President Bush -- read my 
lips.  Jerusalem is part of and the capital of Israel.  ALL of 
Jerusalem.  Palestinians (peaceful) should have free access to all 
their sites (as everyone else).  However, no political affiliation of 
any part of Jerusalem with other than the state of Israel.

Shelly

    All of you who are in Israel are well aware of all of the Jewish
    refugees from the Arab world who were forced out of their countries.  I
    do not hear John's outcry from them.  Isreal was willing to take Jewish
    refugees from the Arab world, but no Arab state has been willing to
    take in Palistinians and resettle them.  I don't hear cries for the
    restoration of property stolen in those Arab staes.
    
    Just my opinion!
    
    Mark

I've been away from BAGELS for a few weeks... I have a lot of catching up
to do...

Re: UN Partition plan
---------------------
The UN partition plan died in 1948 when the Arab countries attacked
Israel and tried to drive the Jews into the sea. It is no more relevent
today than is the "Mandate of Palestine" which was approved and ratified
by the League of Nations and which recognized Palestine as the "Jewish
National Home" with no mention of an Arab Palestinian state. 

Jerusalem was conquered in a war of self-defense. So was Lod, Ramle and
Beit Shemesh. The act of conquest in a just war gives a country more
rights to the conquered land than any politically motivated UN
resolution. John on the one hand says he does not think Israel has to
return to the 1947 partition boundaries, but on the other hand he calls
Israel an "outlaw nation" for retaining Jerusalem. You can't have it both
ways -- either Israel has the right to keep Jerusalem or it does not have
the right to keep Ramle.

Re: Outlaw nations
------------------
The criminal records of Arafat (the Palestinian "president" and leader)
and his PLO gangsters would make Hitler proud. The Palestinian nation
since it's inception (whenever that was) never refrained from acts of
terror against civilian populations. Arafat himself was personally
responsible for and sanctioned the murder of innocent women and children.

Re: Palestinian nation
----------------------
As a nation, the Palestinians never reigned over any land, not Palestine
and not Jerusalem. In fact, prior to the modern Zionist movement, there
was no Palestinian nation.

The first mention ever of any idea that even resembles a "Palestinian
nation" was in 1921 when an Arab delegation protested the terms of the
Mandate which recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people
with Palestine".

At least until 1949, most Palestinian Arabs still considered themselves
part of the Syrian nation. Even the UN partition plan never spoke about a
"Palestinian" state.  Palestine was to have been divided into a Jewish
and yet another "Arab" state. 


Re: dismantling settlements (.21)
-------------------------------

Calling for the dimantling of settlements is advocating the forced
expulsion of Jews from their homes and communities! Kahane was labeled a
racist and fascist for suggesting the same idea for the Arabs.

Re: Sharing Jerusalem
----------------------
Jerusalem can and is shared by all people living there just as New York
and Paris is shared by all people living there.

There's plenty more I'd like to comment on but that's all I have time for
now... 

    It's kinda strange that the most eloquent, charismatic proponent of
    Reaganomics and Republican-styled decentralized government is the prime
    minister of Israel.  Maybe we can trade heart-stoppin' Bob Dole for 
    him straight up to liven up this election.

Oh to have some CHOICES here again.  The contests have been going 
from bad to worse to "can you believe it?".

We have a "brainwashed" dullard versus and immoral incompetent.  Wow!

At least in Mass. we have one good race between two good candidates.

Shelly

    Agreed, Shelly!  You have to wonder about the mental state of Americans
    when they are forced to say honesty is not an issue in this election.

>Even the UN partition plan never spoke about a "Palestinian" state.
>Palestine was to have been divided into a Jewish and yet another "Arab"
>state. 

Half-truth and obfuscation.

The partition plan doesn't name either state, neither Israel nor Palestine,
leaving that to the States to decide.

At the time of the partition, most Jews living in the area were called
Palestinian Citizens, thus this term could not be used in the partition
plan.

See http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/peace/part181.html

>Calling for the dimantling of settlements is advocating the forced
>expulsion of Jews from their homes and communities! Kahane was labeled a
>racist and fascist for suggesting the same idea for the Arabs.

Kahane was suggesting that Arabs who were Israeli citizens be expelled.

I am suggesting that Israeli colonies (and that's precisely what any of
the settlements built since 1967 are) built upon Arab lands be either
abandoned or, at the least, the settlers recognize that the Palestinian
state has sovereignty over them, as provided in Chapter 3 Section 1 of
the partition plan.  The Economic Union required by the plan allows
freedom of movement and employment across the borders of the state.

/john

>At the time of the partition, most Jews living in the area were called
>Palestinian Citizens, thus this term could not be used in the partition
>plan.

Half-truth and obfuscation. 

There is no mention of a "Palestinian state" or a "Palestinian nation"
because there wasn't any. There was a Palestinian government (British)
and there were Palestinian citizens (mostly Jewish or Arab) but no
Palestinian nation.  There was a Jewish nation and an Arab nation. The
Arabs demanded all of Palestine as their own in addition to the other 20
or so states they already had. They - the Arabs - rejected the partition
plan.  

>I am suggesting that Israeli colonies (and that's precisely what any of
>the settlements built since 1967 are) built upon Arab lands be either
>abandoned or, at the least, the settlers recognize that the Palestinian
>state has sovereignty over them, as provided in Chapter 3 Section 1 of
>the partition plan.  The Economic Union required by the plan allows
>freedom of movement and employment across the borders of the state.

Once again, the UN Partition plan is dead; it's provisions are totally
irrelevant to the current status of the territories. Israel conquered
those territories in a just war of self-defense. The country from which
it conquered those territories (Jordan) has relinquished it's (illegal!)
claim to them. There is no other country to hand them over to.  The Jews
have at least as much right to settle there as the Arabs. 

The Jewish communities in the territories are not built on "Arab" land.
It is either privately owned by Jews or state-owned land.  The expulsion
of Jews from their homes and communities cannot be tolerated any more
than the expulsion of Arabs.

Itzhak

>Once again, the UN Partition plan is dead;

The UN Partition plan is far from dead; the UN Security Council has ordered
Israel to give up territory that it has held illegally since the 1967 war.

>There is no other country to hand them over to.

The UN has ordered Israel to relinquish control of East Jerusalem and to
allow the Palestinians to form a state.

>The Jews have at least as much right to settle there as the Arabs.
>The Jewish communities in the territories are not built on "Arab" land.
>It is either privately owned by Jews or state-owned land.  The expulsion
>of Jews from their homes and communities cannot be tolerated any more
>than the expulsion of Arabs.

Under the provisions of international law as it is applied to occupied
territories it is illegal for the occupier to move population into the
occupied territories.  Israel is an outlaw state for establishing
colonies outside its internationally recognized borders.

And as long as the United States does not clearly disassociate itself from
support of Israel's illegal settlement policies and its refusal to allow
the Palestinian people to form their own independent state, Americans can
expect unscrupulous radicals to bomb and/or shoot civilian aircraft out of
the sky.

/john

    Palestine has an official entry in the Olympics so they must be a
    country somewhere ;-)

    Yes, and I also recall them winning a medal or somethinglast time they
    competed in the 1972 Munich games. I can't remember what it was for
    however.
    
    
    And if you really believe that I can't remember, I also have a bridge
    to sell you.

Re: .85
>The UN Partition plan is far from dead; the UN Security Council has ordered
>Israel to give up territory that it has held illegally since the 1967 war.

Pard'n me... but the UN partition plan has nothing whatsoever to do with
the 1967 War. The UN partition plan, passed in 1947, addressed an
entirely different situation. Under that plan Ramle was not to be part of
Israel, but the only ones today that do not accept Ramle as being part of
Israel are those who do not accept Israel's existence at all.

The UN partition plan died when the *Arabs* refused to accept it and
instead attacked Israel with the intent of driving her to the sea.

>>There is no other country to hand them over to.
>
>The UN has ordered Israel to relinquish control of East Jerusalem and to
>allow the Palestinians to form a state.

1) The UN is not G-d
2) The UN is politically and economically motivated.  Succumbing to
   political pressure, they branded Zionism as a form of racism and then
   when no longer advantageous they revoked the resolution.
3) Israel should not accept a resolution which is contary to her security
   needs and national interest even if the almighty UN so ordered.

>Under the provisions of international law as it is applied to occupied
>territories it is illegal for the occupier to move population into the
>occupied territories.  Israel is an outlaw state for establishing
>colonies outside its internationally recognized borders.

Does Israel have a right to keep Ramle and Beit Shemesh and to settle
Jews there? These are also territories aquired by war exactly like Hevron
and Beit-EL. 

Talking about outlaw states...Jordan has occupied Jerusalem, Judea and
Sameria for 19 years and had unlawfully annexed these territories as an
integral part of the Jordanian state.  The same goes for Egypt and Gaza.
Syria is the seat of Arab terror and as for the Palestinians, they are
represented by the PLO and chief Arafat -- the biggest gang of criminals
since Hitler.

>And as long as the United States does not clearly disassociate itself from
>support of Israel's illegal settlement policies and its refusal to allow
>the Palestinian people to form their own independent state, Americans can
>expect unscrupulous radicals to bomb and/or shoot civilian aircraft out of
>the sky.

Under the Rabin/Peres bolshevik regime you could have been charged with
encitement or placed under administrative detention for saying that.

As long as the UN does not clearly disassociate itself from supporting a
gang of child-killers, Israelis cannot be expected to show much respect
for that corrupt organization.

>>             <<< Note 1500.85 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
    
>>And as long as the United States does not clearly disassociate itself from
>>support of Israel's illegal settlement policies and its refusal to allow
>>the Palestinian people to form their own independent state, Americans can
>>expect unscrupulous radicals to bomb and/or shoot civilian aircraft out of
>>the sky.
    
    No. The risk of being shot or bombed by 'unscrupulous radicals' will
    only disapper if USA will become an islamic country.
    
    =Seva
    
    PS: John, are you believe it is an argument ?