Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: 1967 - Israel's Wasted Victory

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Simplistic is correct. Keep it simple. Trying to please everyone after the Six Day War was a mistake made by the United Nations and the United States had a heavy hand in the matter. So, it is not absurd. It is a fact. Your tendency to over empathize with the Arabs in this area is a fault and far from scholarly. It is what it is. If you think I'm wrong than how do you suppose all those Arabs ended up staying in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and so forth to starve. You want Israel to be their welfare state no different than the very countries that tried to destroy Israel to begin with. A coalition of Arab countries, supported and armed by the Soviet Union, tried to destroy Israel. The areas in question were lost by this coalition. The people in these areas needed a name. Palestinian. And that is all it is is a name fore these people are a generation of nothing more than Arab refugees from that war. And you think these Arab countries had no responsibility for these people? Israel should have sent them straight to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel would still be having a problem but not one concerning occupied territories full of unemployed people that hate them and bent on destroying Israel. I wonder what you thought about Israel immediately after the Six Day War.

  2. #2
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    Simplistic is correct. Keep it simple. Trying to please everyone after the Six Day War was a mistake made by the United Nations and the United States had a heavy hand in the matter. So, it is not absurd. It is a fact. Your tendency to over empathize with the Arabs in this area is a fault and far from scholarly. It is what it is. If you think I'm wrong than how do you suppose all those Arabs ended up staying in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and so forth to starve. You want Israel to be their welfare state no different than the very countries that tried to destroy Israel to begin with. A coalition of Arab countries, supported and armed by the Soviet Union, tried to destroy Israel. The areas in question were lost by this coalition. The people in these areas needed a name. Palestinian. And that is all it is is a name fore these people are a generation of nothing more than Arab refugees from that war. And you think these Arab countries had no responsibility for these people? Israel should have sent them straight to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel would still be having a problem but not one concerning occupied territories full of unemployed people that hate them and bent on destroying Israel. I wonder what you thought about Israel immediately after the Six Day War.
    Culpepper,

    The conflict did not start in 67. It started in the 1920's and 1930s. The US role after WWII was relatively neutral; as a result the first source of arms for the new state of Israel was the Soviet Union via Czechoslovakia when the Soviets has a passing fancy that the left-wing Israelis might become a player, a fancy soon dismissed. US support for Israel remained relatively neutral through the 1956 War when Israel, France, and the UK conspired to take the Suez Canal. LBJ on the eve of the 67 War started to open up the arms supplies to Israel and turned on the spigot afterwarrd, replacing France as Israel's number one supplier by 1973. All of this took place in the Cold War and the Soviets took the other side. 1978 and Camp David marked the end of the Cold War in the Middle East because it took two key players Israel and Egypt off the battlefield. Since 1978 the US has been spending close to 10 Billion a year in keeping the two nations at peace.

    As for the refugees, they are just that refugees, They have stayed refugees because it keeps their status before the UN and the world as refugees. The use of the term Palestinian Arab predates the creation of the State of Istrael; its use over time to represent a Palestinian people is exactly the pattern taken by the Zionist movement and creating an Israeli people. Where the report that started this thread pointed to wasted victory was in dealing with the reality of a Palestinian people, especially on the issue of settlements in the territories. Looking at an issue in total is not a fault. In 1967 I was 14. Like most Americans at the time, the 6 Day War was a blip to me on the back drop of the Vietnam War. I have also studied the region for 27 years. I have taught both sides in the same classroom I have lived among both sides and seen the conflict up close.

    Nothing in the Middle East is simple.

    Regards

    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 05-27-2007 at 08:44 PM.

  3. #3
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Tom

    It is "Culpeper" like in "Culpeper Courthouse". Not like the football player.

    These occupied territories were not Palestine prior to the Six Day War. They belonged to the nations that tried to destroy Israel in 1967. As you well know, this was the third time since 1948 that certain Arab nations had tried to destroy the Israelis. I was eight years old in 1967 and I could see the problem certain decisions would cause afterward. And I had the distraction of an older brother fighting as a Marine in Vietnam. As far as I'm concerned the wasted victory for Israel is simple enough for a child to figure out. Had Israel said, "Enough is Enough" than there would be no occupied territories. There would be no "Palestinians". These Arabs would have been assimilated into the population of Israel's neighbors and so forth. Refugee fallout would today be an Arab nation problem and not an Israeli problem. Instead, these Arab nations lost territory and abandoned people in defeat and left them behind for Israel and the rest of the world to deal with. So, we give them a name and state they deserve their own country? This is Israel's wasted victory. Naming the 1967 conflict, "The Six Day War" is as misleading as calling the people of the resulting occupied territories, "Palestinians". The Arabs got the name right. "The Setback".
    Last edited by Culpeper; 05-26-2007 at 10:53 PM.

  4. #4
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Culpeper,

    We will have to agree to disagree.

    Tom

  5. #5
    Council Member Abu Buckwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Insurgency University
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    These occupied territories were not Palestine prior to the Six Day War. They belonged to the nations that tried to destroy Israel in 1967.


    There is virtually no real historical arguement that supports this contentions. Tom Odom is right. He is not coming at it from a pre-determined position. Palestine is much older than many give history credit for. Arabic/Aramaic for Palestine is Filistine (historically now the Gaza strip) ... In fact the Persians named the whole place Philaestina which incorported old Filistin, Judea and Samaria.

    Palestine didn't belong to the nations that were trying to destroy Israe. Remember those "Arab" lands were held together under the Ottman empire until WWI... the British and French drew the false lines of what is now Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, etc... so don't blame the locals for herding sheep and fishing and had dotted lines imposed on them (just like the Iraqis!). Until the Balfour Declaration in 1917 these people all lived together from the iron age, through the Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Abassids, the Europeans Crusades (who killed Jews and Moslems with equal delight) and the Ottomans who came in the 16th century.

    Hey... arguing historically that Jews once had a kingdom there in 600 BC and they hold now the right to kill anybody who objects or who had liuved on that land in the intervening 2600 years is like arguing the Serbs should get an empire and oppress a million Moslems because they lost a battle in Kosovo 600 years ago. However hsitory has favored Israel and they now have a nice, prosperous land with that horrible Maccabe beer.

    Facts as they exist now: Israel is a defacto Jewish state. Done. Not going away. But in 1967 they didn't really face the threat they made us all believe ... -on paper maybe but not actually in the field which is why they won so quickly. The Arabs were a rhetoric-based "aggressive Arab force"... the core of the Egyptian Army was mainly in Yemen at the time, so it was just bluster. Israel doesn't do bluster well. Blitzed the nations around them to disarm them and took what they could and ended the threat... until 1973. It took Egypt/Syria invading to show they they could be defeated militarily and so Camp David led them to make nice with their neighbors Egypt and Jordan.

    However, the West Bank and Gaza they are occupied in 1967 is and shall remain the space of the decendants of the locals who have always lived there ... they are now referred to as Palestinians, both Moslems and Christians. Palestinians/Druze and Hashemite bedouins living in Israel are called Arab Citizens of Israel. In fact so many Arab Jews emigrated to Israel from Arab nations (Yemenis, Persians, Jordanians, Syrians, Moroccans, Kurds, Palestinains, Iraqis, Saudis, Egyptians, etc) they are called Mizrahi Jews- ... they constitute 35-40% of the population. So are we talking about people, nations or religion?

    Its not about which position you come from its about what the facts of the matter are. I grew up Catholic in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood and Hebrew & Yiddish were my first foreign langauges, but as an American Arabist and geo-political realist one can't take sides even if one likes Israel, you gotta look for a solution for the 9 million Palestinians. Its only fair and it could solve numerous regional and global political problems for all of us.

    Israel knows it cannot keep up the occupation. A free, democratic, non-HAMAS run Palestine (because Israel isolating Arafat and the moderates was a HUGE strategic mistake... they gave Palestine to HAMAS) is what we are all after. Israel can use the manpower for industry and Agriculture and Palestinians can use the money for TVs, Coke and advanced university degrees which is what they are known for ... they are the most educated people in the Middle East.

    However, if you oppress a people long enough (with 75% male unemployment) they revolt. Ask the Romans about the Zealots and their group the al-Sikariat or better yet ask the British about the Stern Gang and Irgun terrorist groups. Even Arafat admired them as nationalist fighters and modeled the PLO after them.

    Unfortunately its all fact... how one chooses to interpret those facts is where we get conflict and disagreement, but the facts remain.
    Putting Foot to Al Qaeda Ass Since 1993

  6. #6
    Council Member AdmiralAdama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    as an American Arabist and geo-political realist one can't take sides even if one likes Israel, you gotta look for a solution for the 9 million Palestinians. Its only fair and it could solve numerous regional and global political problems for all of us..
    I certainly believe that one should "take sides" when faced with a fellow democracy trying to survive against the same forces that are threatening us. Islamist supremacism and Jihadism are the forces arrayed against Israel and America. Although Israel's position is different than the United States, we are still facing the same names -- Al Queda, Syria/Iranian sponsored proxy forces, etc. To "not take sides" is not only out of step with American commitment to democracies under assault from dictatorships, but will also damage our credibility and position in the Longer War. Remember that Israel is according to Iranian cant the Little Satan -- we are the Great Satan.

    And this cult of "solutionism" is extremely dangerous. There is no "solution" right now, and certainly not in more ceding of land to Jihadist/anarchist forces. The "Palestinians" have made it clear over and over that they don't want a state. This type of "solutionism" is what gave Sudetenland to the Germans -- it's mistaking the grievance for the cause, which is an ideology of Islamist supremacism and Jihadism.

    Would you also support not "taking sides" between the Brits and the Germans in the 40s? Or not "taking sides" between China and Taiwan? What exactly is America for if it is not "taking sides" between liberty and the dark forces?
    Last edited by AdmiralAdama; 06-12-2007 at 08:03 PM.

  7. #7
    Council Member AdmiralAdama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    73

    Default

    From previous threads on this message board, Mr. Odom seems to come at the Arab-Israeli side from a moderately anti-Israeli position. His stance seems to be that the foreign "Zionists" have invaded a country and that their claim on the land is inferior to the "Palestinians". We will not change such Arabist views on this thread. However, in fairness, i do believe we should be clear that there was nothing like a "Palestinian" nation up til the 1960s, just about the time when the Arabs realized that painting the conflict as "Israel vs. Palestinians" would appeal much more than "Israel vs. Arabs". It's as if Nazi Germany decided that the Sudeten Germans living in Czechoslovakia required a new nation known as "Sudetenland" to achieve self-government. Oh wait, they did do that

  8. #8
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Tom has the historical right of it.

    Trying to tar LTCOL Odom with some sort of anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist brush because he doesn't buy the founding myths of the Israeli state is a favorite tactic of extremists on the Israeli side. Thankfully their arguments have been mostly refuted by Israelis more interested in facts rather than polemics.

    The wiki article on the origins of Palestinian nationalism is informative.

    Even before the end of Ottoman administration, Palestine, rather than the Ottoman Empire, was considered by some Palestinians to be their country. One of the earliest Palestinian newspapers, Filastin founded in Jaffa in 1911 by Issa al-Issa, addressed its readers as "Palestinians".[9] Evidence of Palestinian conceptions of Palestine as a distinct country within the Ottoman Empire can be found in another Palestinian newspaper, al-Karmel, which on 25 July 1913, wrote: "This team possessed tremendous power; not to ignore that Palestine, their country, was part of the Ottoman Empire."[10]

    The idea of a unique and separate Palestinian state was at first rejected by most Palestinians. The First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (in Jerusalem, February 1919), which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."[11]

    After the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the French conquest of Syria, however, the notion took on greater appeal. In 1920, for instance, the formerly pan-Syrianist mayor of Jerusalem, Musa Qasim Pasha al-Husayni, said "Now, after the recent events in Damascus, we have to effect a complete change in our plans here. Southern Syria no longer exists. We must defend Palestine".

    Similarly, the Second Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (December 1920), passed a resolution calling for an independent Palestine; they then wrote a long letter to the League of Nations about "Palestine, land of Miracles and the supernatural, and the cradle of religions", demanding, amongst other things, that a "National Government be created which shall be responsible to a Parliament elected by the Palestinian People, who existed in Palestine before the war."

    Conflict between Palestinian nationalists and various types of pan-Arabists continued during the British Mandate, but the latter became increasingly marginalised. The most prominent leader of the Palestinain nationalists was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. By 1937, only one of the many Arab political parties in Palestine (the Istiqlal party) promoted political absorption into a greater Arab nation as its main agenda. During World War II, al-Husayni maintained close relations with Nazi officials seeking German support for an independent Palestine.[citation needed] However, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War resulted in those parts of Palestine which were not part of Israel being occupied by Egypt and Jordan.

    The idea of an independent nationality for Palestinian Arabs was greatly boosted by the 1967 Six Day War in which these lands were conquered by Israel; instead of being ruled by different Arab states encouraging them to think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, those in the West Bank and Gaza were now ruled by a state with no desire to make them think of themselves as Israelis, and an active interest in discouraging them from regarding themselves as Egyptians, Jordanians, or Syrians.[citation needed]

    Moreover, the natives of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip now shared many interests and problems in common with each other that they did not share with the neighboring countries.

  9. #9
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Stick to Issues

    Thanks for that Teqila.


    AdmiralAdama,

    I am perfectly happy to debate issues and history. We can even agree to disagree. I will not suffer your applying labels to me or any other council members based on a surface read or understanding of my views, background, or writing. Labels as you apply them are simply a tactic of diversion.

    Stick to issues.

    Regards,

    Tom

  10. #10
    Council Member Abu Buckwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Insurgency University
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Thanks for that Teqila.


    AdmiralAdama,

    I am perfectly happy to debate issues and history. We can even agree to disagree. I will not suffer your applying labels to me or any other council members based on a surface read or understanding of my views, background, or writing. Labels as you apply them are simply a tactic of diversion.

    Stick to issues.

    Regards,

    Tom

    All this went down while I was writing one post? I gotte be more succinct!
    Putting Foot to Al Qaeda Ass Since 1993

  11. #11
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    I can't wait for this thread to melt down, like every other internet argument about Israeli/Palestine does. As soon as someone posts something from Joan Peters, I am out of here.

  12. #12
    Groundskeeping Dept. SWCAdmin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    DC area pogue.
    Posts
    1,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralAdama View Post
    From previous threads on this message board, Mr. Odom seems to come at the Arab-Israeli side from a moderately anti-Israeli position. His stance seems to be that the foreign "Zionists" have invaded a country and that their claim on the land is inferior to the "Palestinians". We will not change such Arabist views on this thread. However, in fairness, i do believe we should be clear that there was nothing like a "Palestinian" nation up til the 1960s, just about the time when the Arabs realized that painting the conflict as "Israel vs. Palestinians" would appeal much more than "Israel vs. Arabs". It's as if Nazi Germany decided that the Sudeten Germans living in Czechoslovakia required a new nation known as "Sudetenland" to achieve self-government. Oh wait, they did do that
    I believe you have much to add here. Please do so without labelling approaching an ad hominem attack as the primary venue for adding it.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    By all accounts and reports, it appears fatah and hamas are on the verge of full scale war with each other. This may be more vestiges of history than the raw conflict of grabbing for power since vested interests go way beyond the triangle of the US, Israel and the palestinians, whoever the latter might really be. I doubt the loyalty and committment of neighbors to the 'palestinians' has changed one bit and they are still aligned with the same players despite the infighting. Personally I think Israel's traditional and historical culpability is somewhat exonerated in light of the serious escalation between hamas and fatah.

  14. #14
    Council Member AdmiralAdama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Apologies for an inauspicious beginning here.

    The Arab refugees of 1948 were similar in ethnicity, religion, and language with their surrounding brothers. Indeed, millions of refugees occured in the post WWII era. ALL of these refugees were resettled in neighboring countries except for the "Palestinians" who were kept in "refugee camps" and supplied with money from the UN and propaganda from their leaders, who supported the Nazis in WWII, btw.

    If the Palestinians were a "people" how come we never heard this before 1948? How come there was no "intifada" against the Egyptians and Jordanians who were "occupying" the "Palestinian" lands?

    And if all the "Palestinians" want is a state, how come they didn't grab the opportunity in 1939? Or 1948? Or 1967? Or 2000? How come the PLO was created in 1964, before the gains of 1967?

    We see in the anarchy of Gaza today that the "Palestinians" do not want a state. They want to destroy Israel, as the Hamas charter lays out. This same desire to destroy Israel motivated the Arab invasion in 1948 and the genocidal Arab talk of 1967, and the sentiment continues today. Sometimes we should take what our enemies take seriously -- both in the 30s in Germany and today with Islamist supremacism.

  15. #15
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralAdama View Post
    Apologies for an inauspicious beginning here.

    The Arab refugees of 1948 were similar in ethnicity, religion, and language with their surrounding brothers. Indeed, millions of refugees occured in the post WWII era. ALL of these refugees were resettled in neighboring countries except for the "Palestinians" who were kept in "refugee camps" and supplied with money from the UN and propaganda from their leaders, who supported the Nazis in WWII, btw.

    If the Palestinians were a "people" how come we never heard this before 1948? How come there was no "intifada" against the Egyptians and Jordanians who were "occupying" the "Palestinian" lands?

    And if all the "Palestinians" want is a state, how come they didn't grab the opportunity in 1939? Or 1948? Or 1967? Or 2000? How come the PLO was created in 1964, before the gains of 1967?

    We see in the anarchy of Gaza today that the "Palestinians" do not want a state. They want to destroy Israel, as the Hamas charter lays out. This same desire to destroy Israel motivated the Arab invasion in 1948 and the genocidal Arab talk of 1967, and the sentiment continues today. Sometimes we should take what our enemies take seriously -- both in the 30s in Germany and today with Islamist supremacism.
    I find a great deal of this simply ridiculous. First off, putting Palestinians and people in quotes like that is insulting. How would you feel if someone posted something with "Israelis" and "people"? By the same token, sweeping generalizations of the motives of any diverse group is dangerous and misleading. Certainly there are some within the Palestinian leadership circles (and I say circles because we are currently see two groups fighting for control), but there are also far-right elements within Israel that would like very much to see the Palestinians go away as a people.

    No one has clean hands in this region. No one. Many of the Arabist groups supported the Nazis (or at least leaned in that direction) because they thought it would remove British domination from their territories. Many of the problems we see today in the Middle East and Africa are a direct result of European colonialism and empire-building, and the motives of the locals aren't often as clear-cut as we might wish. Nor does the region exist in a vacuum.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  16. #16
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Apologies for an inauspicious beginning here.
    Ok

    The Arab refugees of 1948 were similar in ethnicity, religion, and language with their surrounding brothers.
    By Arab refugees I assume you are referring to those of Palestine as a region, And to that I would say, yes similiar and no not all the same. The area of Palestine was an extension of the composition of Lebanon, that is Muslim, Druze, and Christian, all of whom were Arabs in that they spoke Arabic. As an extension of Lebanon (the Levant) the area also ran up against the more traditional Bedouin tribes that made up Sinai, Transjordan, and Hejaz.

    In 1948, the UN voted for partition of the area accoding to the rather bizarre map as laid out after years of discussion--and influence of the Brits. The surrounding Arab states decalred that Israel would not stand as a nation and a mish mash of Arab armies were defeated piecemeal by the Israeli forces, including the Palmach, the Haganah, and the Likud/Stern hardliners.

    As all of this went down along the fringes of the new Israeli state, hardline elements within the Jewish defense forces engaged in ethnic cleansing forciing as many Arabs out as they could. This was not a declared policy of the new state but it was done. Look up Deir Yassin for the most notable case--it took place on the eve of partition.

    Indeed, millions of refugees occured in the post WWII era. ALL of these refugees were resettled in neighboring countries except for the "Palestinians" who were kept in "refugee camps" and supplied with money from the UN and propaganda from their leaders, who supported the Nazis in WWII, btw.
    Here I am confused over which refugees you are referring to. The UNHCR came about as a result of this period; the UNHCR supports refugees and yes they supply them with food and means to make a living.

    On the support of the Nazis, that the Mufti of Jersusalem was sympathetic to the Germans and he was definitely anti-Semtic in his leanings, The Egyptians, the Syrians, and the Iraqis all had leanings that were as much anti-British as they were pro-Nazi.

    And by the way, the Stern Gang (Lehi) actually established contact with the Nazis because trhey were anti-British and the Nazis could be counted on to drive more European Jewry into the arms of Zionism. Keep Lehi and the Irgun in mind because Begin's Likud emerged from those early roots.


    If the Palestinians were a "people" how come we never heard this before 1948? How come there was no "intifada" against the Egyptians and Jordanians who were "occupying" the "Palestinian" lands?
    For the same reason no one called the Jews in Palestine, Israelis. The region was called Palestine for centuries. The Palestinians had not need to push for a state in 1939--indeed they were under colonial administration. Transjordan was a semi-state that resulted from the Arab Revolt in WWI and its modern successor was Jordan. Egypt gained its freedom in the post WWII era. Neither Jordan nor Egypt were "occupiers" of Palestine.


    We see in the anarchy of Gaza today that the "Palestinians" do not want a state. They want to destroy Israel, as the Hamas charter lays out. This same desire to destroy Israel motivated the Arab invasion in 1948 and the genocidal Arab talk of 1967, and the sentiment continues today. Sometimes we should take what our enemies take seriously -- both in the 30s in Germany and today with Islamist supremacism.
    By "we" I assume you mean you; I would say that the Palestinians do want a state; the real issue is how that state is going to be defined. There is a tremendous difference in the Palestinians of 1967 and 2007. They are very much more radicalized. In that regard, they are very much like the Shia of Lebanon where Israeli occupation provided the fertile ground for the rise of Hizballah. Hamas is very much the Sunni clone of what happened in Lebanon with Hizballah. The year 2000 was a watershed event in this saga because both sides were as close as they have ever been to a settlement. Arafat's and Sharon's grandstanding killed that.

    Finally I would say to you that I am neither pro Arab nor pro Israeli. I am pro balance in foreign policy. Neither side in this particular conflict wears a white hat.

    Regards

    Tom

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •