Why do we let this happen?

Somebody was quoted in an article i read the other day (about the upcoming handover in Iraq) as saying sovereignty is like being pregnant. You either are or aren't.

Most of the time it seems Arafat isn't even free to leave his compound, he knows if he left the country the Israelis would not let him back in. So it is laughable to consider him a leader in control of a sovereign government, free from external control and able to defend itself.

Which is a large part of the problem and why I am not more sympathetic towards Israel. They maintain the status quo because as awful as the violence is, preventing Palestine from becoming a full fledged country guarantees their survival.

 

No one used the word sovereign.

Arafat has worked to derail any prospects for peace for many years, and you feel sorry for him? His position is based on a desire for power coupled with a hatred of Jews. He is a terrorist and a criminal pure and simple.
Nothing but the extermination of the Jews and the elimination of Israel will satisfy him. And he's the one you empathize with?
No such desires for total destruction are expressed by the Israeli side but your sympathies lie with the other side?
Interesting.

 

And that's what so wrong about having a discussion here. I can't speak for him, but I believe he said he was not more sympathetic towards Israel. You jumped to the conclusion (right or wrong) that he sympathizes with the other side.

It's possible to disagree with both sides. It's also possible to disagree with one and be indifferent to the other. Just like with political candidates, for instance.

 

Wrong??

What fun would this be if you didn't have me to disagree with you or get your dander up?

If you can employ pretzel logic then I reserve the right to jump to conclusions, with both feet if necessary.

 

Just yesterday in a press conference, general Kimmit used the term "transfer of sovereignty" during a press conference in reference to the timing of the end of General Sanchez' rotation in Iraq. But I suppose you are correct, he did not say "sovereign."

 

I used the word sovereignty because I think that it is relevant in deciding if a group of people are an organization or a proper government.

Ultimately that is a large part of any solution. And, although I understand and agree with some of the many complicating factors, my point is that the Israelis don't want that to happen. It ensures Palestine can't wipe out Israel and the violence will continue indefinitely.

But as Papa pointed out, I didn't take sides.

 

I thought we were discussing Israel/Palestine?

 

Have to disagree, I think the Israeli's would love to see that happen. Palestine would never be a serious threat to Israel militarily. Half the middle east has attacked Israel and haven't succeeded.

Go back in recent history and see which side has continuously de-railed negotiations. On a wider scope, look at what happens to middle east leaders who negotiate or side with America.

 

That's because Israel is the only country in the area with nuclear weapons. Take those away and you would have a much more fair fight.

 

Fair fight? Read up on the 1973 Syrian attack on the Golan Heights - over 1,100 Syrian tanks vs. less than 200 Isralei tanks. No nukes used there, and the Syrians got whooped.

 

They have yet to use nuclear weapons to win a war, so they are strategically useless for conventional warfare.

In other words, they make no difference.

 

Brain fart.

 

Having the capability is important enough. Deterence is key even when in a conventional war. Our nuclear weapons helps us and we haven't used them since WWII. IMO our nuclear capabilities have alot to do with why dictators like Hussein don't launch chem/bio weapons on the US military. Just and opinion of course but it is an opinion shared by many.