“Regardless of how they got there, who did what to them first, etc, etc, etc, Israel has to do something with the Palestinians.”

Apparently the point is lost on you. At what point is the situation the Palestineans are in the responsibility of the Palestineans? During those 19 years, was there any resistance to the “illegal” occupation of Jordan, or being “dicked” by Nasser? Or, were they willing to be armed by these players, and stand with them against Israel, instead of using that time to establish an independent Palestinean state, with the promise that it could all be theirs once the Jews were wiped out, or “pushed into the sea”?

Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce once said “I will fight no more, forever”. Emperor Hirohito said the Japanese people must “endure the unendurable”. Germany had to prove itself for over 45 years before allied occupation was removed in the ’90′s. Only when the Palestineans themselves want peace will there be peace. It’s not Israel’s decision to make. Period.

I recognize your argument. It actually comes directly from Thomas Friedman’s “From Beirut to Jerusalem”. I enjoyed it a great deal, and I understand your points, but I have several problems to address.

First of all, I think that we are arguing in the past about Israel “controlling” Gaza or the West Bank. Ariel Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israelis from the Gaza strip and the West Bank almost 7 years ago! If you look at a map of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are conspicuously absent from the shaded area. If by “control” you mean that Israel watches its borders or retaliates when it is attacked, then you are correct. But for that matter, every country “controls” its neighbors by maintaining its borders and being geographically located over strategic resources and locations. Technically, Sharon followed Friedman’s advice on the issue.

Second, Israel can bear no responsibility for the failure of the Palestinians to organize their government. The fallout between Hamas and Fatah should prove this, unless you are a conspiracy theorist. As such, the lack of an actual Palestinian state makes it unlikely that it can control the water, the air, or any other outside strategic location even if Israel were to secede control.

If the Palestinians lay down their weapons and commit to peace for a decade or two, Israel will no longer be a Jewish state because the demographics will shift in favor of the Palestinians. You need to take a dim view of the Israelis to think that they will commit mass murder or mass deportation to prevent that. This is why Sharon wanted the Palestinians to have their own territories that they could make their own states. They wouldn’t be his problem anymore. The two-state, or even three-state solution is very possible, but there is a lack of political will among the Palestinians as they want more than just Gaza or the West Bank.

The Arab Israelis are also a growing problem for the Jewish Israelis. I think eventually Israel will cease to be if the Arab Israelis overpopulate the the Jews.

In short, unless you think the Israelis are blood-sucking vampires, because of demographic trends, I expect Israel will no longer be a Jewish state in 50 to 100 years either because of the Arab Israelis or because the Palestinians lay down their weapons.

Although you say that you are conceding that the Palestinians are 100% responsible, the way that you argue suggests that you are not taking that assumption into account. Do you really care about the answer to the question?

This is true, and irrelevant. Israel controls the West Bank now and, as a result, must deal with the consequences.

The POINT is that nobody gave a rat’s ass about the Paleos’ rights until they became useful to bash Israel.

This is true, and speaks very poorly of the various dictators who have ruled virtually every Arab state, and most (but a shrinking number of) Muslim states, for decades. Ok, so we have established that bad dictators are bad. Beyond that, this point is irrelevant. It does not matter if anyone cared. My point has never been about who cares and does not care; it has always been about the consequences for Israel of maintaining the status quo, consequences the existence of which most people here have studiously avoided acknowledging.

Paleos

Is there a reason to refer to Palestinians as Palis or Paleos? I’m genuinely curious about this one. “Palis” I understand could, in theory, be shorthand for a pretty long word, but Paleos? This is sort of like referring to Obama as “Obonga” or whatever you people are calling him this day. Do you think that you are, in some way, really sticking it to people like me when you refer to them as Paleos? Do you think you’re sticking it to actual Palestinians? Do you, as I suspect, use it instead to signal to likeminded folks that you care so little for them that you can’t be bothered referring to them by their actual name? If I had to bet, I’d put money on the last.

The problem is that the Paleos’ leaders insist on a one-state solution, and that means the end of Israel.

Fatah’s leadership accepted years ago the two-state solution, as had (until the last election) Israel’s leadership. Furthermore, Israel has committed itself to a two-state solution through the various accords it has signed. Israel should be held accountable to those accords, much as any sovereign state is held accountable for the various treaties and accords it signs, even if its government changes through elections. Note that one of the requirements for U.S. recognition of a Palestinian unity government is that Hamas agree to abide by all accords signed by the Palestinian National Authority; there’s no reason we shouldn’t expect the same from Israel.

The Israelis object.

A minority of Israelis object. Thanks to Israel’s electoral system, they’re currently in charge. But large majorities of Israelis indicate through public opinion polls their support for a two-state solution.

What you seem to miss is that other people are allowed to know stuff in addition to the smoke you’re peddling.

None of this has been smoke. Let me restate, just so we’re clear: to me, it appears that preventing the creation of a Palestinian state equals suicide for Israel. If there is another scenario than binationalism, apartheid, or genocide that you can imagine resulting from the maintenance of the status quo, I’m really interested in hearing it.

Yet another one who apparently never cracked a history book.

Suppose you have a US military force that attempts to impose martial law on a US city? Such an act is blatantly illegal, but there are precedents in US history for this event occurring.

According to you, any resistance by the people to such an imposition of martial law would be treasonous as you ignore the whole *overthrowing the government* component that is generally accepted as treason.

See how fast your argument falls apart?

Regarding your last statement, you do realize that slavery – you know, the topic you claim was the reason Southerners “picked up guns and fired them at U.S. soldiers” – was not actually stopped as a legal practice in the US until passage of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865.

At the time of the amendment’s passage, slavery was still legal in Delaware and Kentucky – 2 states that fought on the side of the US in the Civil War.

There is also the issue of timing of this amendment.

Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9, 1865. So it took the US government 8 months from the end of the war to actually pass the amendment at a time when the northern states were in complete control of the government.

That position also ignores that throughout the years of the Civil War, slavery was still legal in states supporting the US government aside from the 2 previously mentioned states.

The Emancipation Proclaimation doesn’t provide cover for this claim either, as it didn’t actually free a single slave.

It applied only to states that were part of the Confederacy – over which Lincoln had no power to enforce his proclaimation.

There are also legal arguments that he didn’t have the power to make this proclaimation at all – which is a moot point since it was only aimed at states within the Confederacy and not at slave holding states still in the Union.

That position likewise ignores that only passage of the 13th amendment was enough to force Grant to free his own slaves.

Grant of course being a slave owner as well as the general who led the US army during the Civil War and who later became president himself.

So essentially you are arguing that the South initiated a war to defend a practice that was legal, and continued to be legal, throughout territories on both sides of the conflict and was not actually prohibited until long after the war itself had ended.

And for what it’s worth, I’m still wondering if *curious* has an answer yet as to whether or not Palestinians could be considered treasonous under his previously stated positions….

LOL. “They didn’t define treason, they just established what the word treason means.”

“If your position were correct, there would be an inconsistency in the logic behind the US Constitution.”

Yeah, no guys who would ever create something like the 3/5 compromise would ever contradict themselves.

“As for the war itself, the north was the aggressor.”

South shot first.

“It didn’t try to invade the north”

Except for that time when they, you know, invaded the north.

“Had Lincoln allowed the South to leave peacefully, there would have been no war.”

Had southerners not picked up guns and fired them at U.S. soldiers so they could continue owning black people, there would have been no war.

I guess that’s another promise the left made they didn’t keep…

Again, I explained the context for the treason reference in the US Constitution – perhaps you should go back and read it once more. It’s pretty clear. They didn’t redefine treason, they simply defined the actions that would be grounds for the accusation of treason – there is still that troublesome overthrowing the government thing you are ignoring.

If you doubt that simply waging war is insufficient grounds for accusations of treason, consider the 2nd amendment. It was specifically written in to give the states and the people the martial power to fight the central government.

If your position were correct, there would be an inconsistency in the logic behind the US Constitution. The guys who wrote it were smart enough not to do that.

If instead you try to claim the amendment simply changed something in the constitution, then the final word still remains the 2nd amendment.

It’s funny watching you corkscrew your way into that hole.

As for the war itself, the north was the aggressor. The Army of Northern Virginia was called that because it generally remained in Virginia. It didn’t try to invade the north and conquer it and overthrow the US government – which would have been treason.

Had Lincoln allowed the South to leave peacefully, there would have been no war.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough?

“at no time did the South ever attempt to overthrow the government.”

This is true, and irrelevant. I never made the claim that the south attempted to overthrow the government. I argued that the south levied war against the government – exactly the Constitution’s definition of treason.

This is why I am able to cite the example of the Rosenbergs, executed for treason for passing along nuclear secrets as spies to the Soviets. Neither of them attempted to overthrow the U.S. government. Perhaps you think they were innocent of treason?

“the South simply leaving the union”

I don’t think you can call the bloodiest war in U.S. history “simple.” It’s not like they said “toodles!” and waved goodbye; they waged a war.

Again, the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them

What was the Army of Northern Virginia doing other than waging war against the United States?

OK! I hereby swear that, no matter how badly you misread what I have written or how stupid your response, I will not reply on this subject again.