Well, i'll be...

[Az]

yes, in a single government that Peres didn't really want to get out of. But I actually meant history as in 'bad history'.

[GePap]

Ned:

First thing: The world community may talk, but they have not cared much about the palestinians. After all, what ill effect has Israel felt from the expansion of settlements from the international community? And the US osition has become more pro-Israeli wth time. Carter openly called the settlemenst illegal. Rummy speaks of the 'so called occupied territories' and the US says barely a peep about them anymore.

It is also a question of principles. For many Israelis, the notion that the land was promised to them by God is key. For others, the notion that Jews need a strong state to remain safe is just as strong. When sentiments are this strong, you do something, damn the consequences. For the extreme right, which this current government has best represented, the notions of what th world may think are meanigless, as they think the whole world is ou to get them anyway. If they all hate you, why bother to care about what they think?

I agree the majority of israeli do not agree wit this, but when the majority is scarred, they will go, if not gladly, with the lans of the most extreme, since they at least have 'answers'.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem i see with that Ned is that Jews that left Arab areas were not refugees, as the notion of a refugee is defined. The flow of Jews out of Morrocoo, Iraq and Yemen took many years, up to decades. They left because of persecution but not because of immidate threats of force. They are, in that sense, similar to people leaving somewhere like haiti: bad life conditions making people chose to go elsewhere for a better life. They are migrants then, not refugees. What is to be done with the property of migrants then is a much more complex issue tht what is to be done with the lands of refugees.

If we talk only about the situation of the Mandate region, then Jewish holdings in those land that ended up being palestinians are tiny compared to Palestinain holdings in the lands that ended being Israeli. So Israel would be the one paying out big, not the Palestinians. Which is why I think Israel emans all Arab states, but as i said, since those Jewish migrants do not fit the UN definition of refugees the same rules do not apply.

If a person leaves voluntarily, he typically sells his house first. So to the extent he was forced to flee and leave behind property, for whatever reason, he is a refugee.

I am sure, although I have not looked it up, that the Germans are paying Jews who fled Germany and who left behind property that the Germans confiscated. I see no reason why hostile Arab states should not also pay for confiscated Jewish property even as they insist that Israel do the same for Arab refugees.

[Az]

So , how do you define refugee? remind you that the overwhelming majority of arabs didn't leave because they're were under direct threat.

[Ned]

GePap, I think your conclusions about America policy concerning the Palestinians is incorrect. Bush has called for a Palestinian state within three years. If Israel instead tried to annex the West Bank and Gaza without granting citizenship to the Arabs, their would be a major confrontation.

As to Carter saying the settlements were illegal to Rumsfeld taking a softer line, I suggest that there has be a growing recognition of the legal complexities of the settlements. As well, Carter is a good example of Democrat polititians - they tend to side with the "oppressed" people of Palestine and to find fault with any Israel policy that confronts terrorism rather than appeases it. (Of course, the Republican hard line against terrorism may be a reflection of Republican resolve after 9/11. Rumsfeld may have be less accomodating to Israel had 9/11 never occurred.)