Exactly, since the '73 we’ve been shovelling money, and more importantly arms contracts at them. Note the use of present tense, despite the typo, in my previous post. Those Apache choppers they’re using to blow up Hamas leaders didn’t fall out of the sky. The reason there hasn’t been the same constant warfare with their neighbors is the constant supply of superior American military equipment. This despite the fact that the size of Arab militaries has long surpassed the point where they could swarm the Israelis with superior numbers, even with the best performance the IDF has handed out in previous conflicts.
Don’t you think that Israel gives the Palestinians plenty of reasons to hate it?
What’s wrong with a Palestinian homeland where they currently live, Israel has no legitmate claim to the West Bank or Gaza.
Radon , thanks for the detailed and coherant responses. We are puzzled at many of the same things. I’m not sure I had ever considered 'Europe" (if that can really be judged to be acting as one entity) to have been more pro-Palestinian in recnt years. Certainly, less pro-Israeli than the US, but that’s not necesarily the same thing.
filmyak
What do you consider this to mean. “If the Palestinians put down their guns there would be peace”. Would it be peace as in an abscence of war, or would there be real improvements in the living standards of Palestinians? Would they have a viable territory to live in, with real responsibility for their own affairs. A true peace, that has a chance at lasting, is far more complicated, and requires far more than a simple “military surrender” on the Palestinian side.
You are right, it is a much more balanced outlook on the situation. However, blaming all parties does not bring about ‘perfect’ balance. The real issue here has been buerried so deep in politics that crime is being ovelooked, even excused. The bottom line, as I see it, is this:
… And they will get all the ‘virgins’ they could ever wish for - sounds better than the West Bank if you ask me.
There is no synonim to this lifestyle in our society. If one could imagine the KKK having such powers (legaly to some extent) to influence the public, only then can a similar comparison be made. Comparing Israel to the PA is comparing Apples and Oranges.
If this kind of radical exremism was ENFORCED INTERNALY (key words) as illegal activity, as opposed to ‘normal’ every-day life, I would be willing to bet my goldfish - and I’ll even throw in my grandmother (love them both) - that you will find the problem, not so much disapearing, but more evaporating. This would, however, cause a great deal of ‘internal disputes’ which, my intuition tells me, would be ‘un-favourable’ for the PA - god forbid, maybe even initiate terrorist attacks against them by Hamas or al-Quida!!! Therefore having Israel there is merely convenient for the PA.
A simplistic outlook it may be, but I guess we’ll never know.
And the state of the American Arms and Weapons Manufacturers minus Israeli purchases would be…?
American military “aid” to Israel MUST be spent only on projects in which over 50% of the budget are spent IN THE USA - thus providing administration after administration a way to “Shovel” something like a Billion $$$ a year BACK INTO the American military industry (without budgeting it as subsidies or direct support).
So, in effect, we are acting as a “laundromat” for Washington politicos spending your tax dollars to bolster american industry without actually admitting it has to. Not necessarily a bad thing (except perhaps, you may say, for the weapons created in the process).
You think Washington is about to give this channel up? Not to mention Raytheon, McDonnel-Douglas, etc…
Bottom line - we get the hardware we need to survive, you get the contracts and the jobs in American industry. Not too pretty, but that’s the way it is.
I didn’t say I wanted it to stop. I said that the relationship gives a significant leverage position over Israel, which is not a bad thing. And that we should seek a similar leverage position, though not necessarily through military aid, with the Palestinians. If we threw a few billion into establishing a Palestinian economic base which would be reliant on the US, we could both improve conditions there and give the Palestinians a very good reason to crack down on terror. And yes, that would feed back into the domestic economy, which is also not the worst thing that could happen.
But isn’t it like a set of scales? By placing more on one side, in effect, reduces the other. It appears to me as if there is so much weight on one side of the scales, that something big within the proposed economic base must be found to couter-act this weight. The question is (and i’m all for the idea) what is it? Does the maths add up? etc…
OK, perhaps I misunderstood you. I am all for “pumping” money into the Palestinian economy (although one would have to be VERY careful that the money ends up IN the economy, rather than in Switzerland… but that’s a different issue).
In general, beyond the question of American leverage on either side, if the Palestinian economy is “pumped up”, there will be far more people there with something to lose, and people with something to lose are generally more amenable to compromise solutions than those without. They are also less likely to be willing to go blow themselves up, or see their children do the same - just as good, or maybe better, reason (than leverage) to help the Palestinians economically.
Bottom line - a better life for Mr. John Palestinian = a better life for Ms. Joan Israeli (or vice-versa). Note I’m talking about John and Joan, not about the (often so-called) “leadership”! Also note, “better life” = more food on cupboard, more money in bank. I cannot address the question of internal liberties (freedom of speech against PA, for example); and I’m afraid that freedom of movement (fewer to no roadblocks) can only come AFTER a reduction in terrorism levels (brought about either by cutting the grass-roots support, as you suggest, or by some other means)
Dan Abarbanel